Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
wiki is not the news media stated in the APEC Singapore 09 Image Usage Policy .
- 2. Media (newspapers, magazines, news-websites, tv-stations) are allowed to publish images that they have obtained from this image gallery in the editorial part of their publication without paying a fee, as far as the general conditions in this Image Usage Policy are adhered to. The images may not be published on the Internet in a size larger than 800 pixels (longer side).
- 9. The use of these images for any other purpose (e.g. advertising) without written permission from the APEC 2009 Organising Committee is prohibited.
221.127.249.137 02:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted for being under a false license and a copyvio. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be an ad for the company Destaka. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this media file is derivated from here: http://www.zombieland.com/ .It is true that the author would be somebody of "Sony Pictures" as well as the source is "Sony Pictures". But uploading this image to a free media archieve like Commons is illegal - in my view. A.Hakansson (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
An ad for haitikiskeya --Silversmith Hewwo 07:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by The Evil IP address: Page is out of project scope
falsche datei hochgeladen Expert19612005 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: uploader requested[1] deletion for privacy reasons.
This does not look like an own work, the uploader has various problems in the past with image licensing and sourcing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete There must be hundreds of replacements here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope, image of a non-notable band (the article has been deleted in ruwiki). --Blacklake (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a trivial category relating to one dead person and unlikely to have any more significant images. --Ash (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep That's not a valid reason for deleting the cat. Remember that on commons it doesn't matter that a category only has one image in it. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This was listed as PD-ineligible, but clearly does not consist solely of "public information" --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Does not have permission from stated author. Uploader seems to be trying to delete it by blanking the page. --Simonxag (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I highly doubt that "Came original for Google Search image service" is an appropriate source
-- D-Kuru (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment tag with nsd? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
possible copyright violation 83.9.143.57 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete No exif data, size of a typical web photo, shows subject in a photo call for photographers, PD-self but looks rather suspicious. --Simonxag (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unclear what this is. No description, no categories, unused. Pruneautalk 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope is a reason for a speedy deletion, usually Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scope is often controversial and not a reason for speedy deletion. However Delete per nom. --Simonxag (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Photo of a non-notable individual. Unused. Pruneautalk 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, per COM:PS —Dferg (disputatio) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot from move or TV Justass (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete this one. The duplicate is properly licensed and doesn't look to be a screenshot. --Simonxag (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated before user uploaded different image over previous one, look at very first in file history -Justass (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a screenshot. The current version is an unrelated copy of another file, with wrong information (no license). The other (duplicate) file looks fine though. --Simonxag (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated before user uploaded different image over previous one, look at very first in file history -Justass (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, no evidence of permission GlassCobra (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It looks like a commercial image and it's the user's only upload. --Simonxag (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
copyvio: not own work, screenshot Tekstman (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete source "screenshot", no permission. --Simonxag (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
copyvio: not own work, prob. screenshot Tekstman (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom given that user's only other upoad is a screenshot and this looks very suspicious. --Simonxag (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Switzerland laws on w:en:Related rights ( http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/231_1/ ) say this interpretation by musicians is protected automatically for 50 years. This protection open for rights to decide of diffusion, and compensation. As this file is presented, it seems like the uploader have recorded this sound from his television, without agreement from the musicians listed, or a proof must be given that the agreement between Swiss Television & musicians open for subsidiary recording & relicencing by television viewers.
Author is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Interprets are :
- Orchestra: Conservatorio della Svizzera italiana
- Soloist: Kristian Cvetković
- Conductor: Thierry Fischer
Recorder & diffusion : Swiss Television
Derivative Recorder is : Kristian Cvetković
The last one cant forgot the rights of the previous ones and cant licence it CC BY SA. --Lilyu (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Otourly (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
probl. copyvio Tekstman (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Pretty blatant copyvio. There's no permission and the uploader doesn't even claim to be the author. Delete this user's other upload File:Julianasolange.JPG too, for the same reasons. --Simonxag (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope and/or susp. copyvio Tekstman (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope http://www.bloomingpedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Bullerdick Tekstman (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused (in these projects) personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fried Heuler died in 1959. So this painting of him is still copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It seems the photo was taken at an exhibition in Bad Kissingen in Germany. No FOP in those circumstances. --Simonxag (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photo --Simonxag (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fried Heuler died in 1959. Drawing is still copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It seems the photo was taken at an exhibition in Bad Kissingen in Germany. No FOP in those circumstances. --Simonxag (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
advertisement Uwe W. (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Unused image, does not match http://www.moci.gov.bh/en/KingdomofBahrain/BahrainFlag/. We have PNG and SVG files that match the official laws of Bahrain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
____________________
Deleted/Duplicate,not used and inaccurate.--Fanghong (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
© Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton, see: http://jmm45.free.fr/planetes/rhea/rhea.htm Uwe W. (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's from a NASA picture but colorised by Calvin J. Hamilton. --Simonxag (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
____________
Delted/Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded as a test, user thought he could delete them immediately. This explanation was given to me by email while processing an unblock request in my capacity as an administrator on en (same username). As the user is blocked on en, I told him I would try and process this...though I recognize that I am not an admin here and do not entirely know the deletion protocols. Neither image in the history appears to be used in any article. --Syrthiss (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused logo, and both it and previous version of the image are likely copyvios. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
_____________
Deleted/As above reqested.--Fanghong (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
the uploader has no evidence of ownership --Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
_________________
Deleted/Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Looks like a private individual's bank balance. Pruneautalk 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also:
- File:CalcoliRiserva1 Commons.gif
- File:CalcoliRiserva2 Commons.gif
- File:CalcoliRiserva1 2 Commons.gif
- File:CalcoliRiserva2 2 Commons.gif
- File:CalcoliRiserva2 3 Commons.gif
- File:CalcoliRiserva1_3_Commons.gif
- File:Art Riserva SistBancario 1.png
- File:Art Riserva SistBancario 2.png
- File:Art Riserva Sing 2.png. Pruneautalk 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope is a reason for a speedy deletion ?! Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
_________________
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Useless: no indication of what the x-axis is. No description, no categories, unused. Pruneautalk 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Same goes for all other files by this uploader:
_________________
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't want this file to be online anymore, because of misuse. Radiominded (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Misuse on Wikimedia projects or outside? --Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Outside of Wikimedia, for use against the wishes of the portraited person.--Radiominded (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, I tend to accede to requests by the subject of the photo, but this was obviously posed, so the person certainly knew his photo was being taken, and the license isn't revocable, which is to say that even if we stop hosting it, uses outside of Wikimedia Foundation projects will still be legal. Given the issue you raise, wouldn't it make the most sense to add the {{Personality rights}} tag to the image, and keep it? - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep image is already released to PD, deletion in Commons wont diminish anyone's rights to do what ever they want to this picture. Besides really nice picture illustrating Zwarte Piet. --Justass (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the person who made this image. I placed it here without permission of the illustrated person. He asked me to delete it, because he doesn't want it to be online here, because people started using the picture against his will. He didn't knew it was online here. --Radiominded (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK that's at least given us some reason for removal apart from the photographer's change of mind. If the subject actively objects, it might be reasonable for us to accede to their wishes. Also I think we may have had issues with personality rights laws in the Netherlands in the past. --Simonxag (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The person in question never agreed to this photo being presented online, despite the licencing. We're nice people, right? It's a great photo, but I'm sure we can find a replacement—it's not that big of a deal. — Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete
_________________
Deleted/Uploader reqested.--Fanghong (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Professonal picture without any metadata of unknown origin no author given uncertainty about copyright status due to lack of data MoiraMoira (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) I have updated the description. Hausofmakeup (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Please, remove this picture. Zwartmaker (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 00:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since). Previously subject to DR and history split, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If the original license was valid. --RAN (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The persons in the picture are recognizable. There is no indication of their permission to use it with a free license, in fact, there are indications they object to it on legally valid grounds. MarcoSwart (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep I can understand why the people in the photograph would want it deleted. That said, they don't own the copyright. Nor does Commons need the permission of models to host images featuring them. That's just my opinion though. Someone else could probably go a completely different way with it, but I do think deleting an image just because a person in said image has a problem with it being hosted on Commons could set a bad precedent. Especially if it's just because some stupid people online are misusing the image, which obviously isn't Commons' problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dutch copyright is applicable and "portrait rights" are part of Dutch copyright law. MarcoSwart (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
this image looks like a copyrighted protected press image 78.32.143.113 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
this image looks like a copyrighted protected press image 78.32.143.113 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC):
- 元画像に著作権の明記がありませんでしたので転載いたしました。問題があるならば、削除していただいて結構です。--Ten-nen 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If it LOOKS like a copyright-protected image, it is a simple matter to contact VW of Europe (this is not a North American model) and ask for permission/clearance.
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
dieses bild ist mein werk und ich möchte es aus privaten gründen gelöscht haben.danke Expert19612005 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
bitte löschen bild hat keine Lizenz Expert19612005 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(keine lizenz) --Expert19612005 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Expert19612005 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
falsche datei hochgeladen Expert19612005 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
falsche datei hochgeladen Expert19612005 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Shown subject is certainly copyrighted, see Commons:Derivative works. --Noddy93 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete derivative of Kermit.-- Deadstar (msg) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- This seemed to be the original puppet of Kermit and no derivative of kermit. But surely copyrighted and taken in a museum which is also problemtic. There are also other images on Category Sesame Street and subfolder. --Kungfuman (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Who is the author? When did he die? ALE! ¿…? 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy deletion request by the uploader himself. Clarification of the status of this image is required before proceeding to deletion. --Sv1xv (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
comment: reasons for deletion unclear - from wikisource I know that (rule for Germany) texts or material with unknown coyright status can be used, if it is older than 100 years Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
further: it is taken from the homepage of the compagny lagostina Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep from http://www.lagostina.it/philosophy/History/Histoire.htm – keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No reason for PD-old, deleted on de because of insufficient licensing information. --Noddy93 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
per COM:FAN, I believe this is a copyrigt violation as it depicts the appearance of a copyrighted video game character. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The template is probably the one found here, which I believe was adapted from the papercraft model available from the official site at this location for a few years (wayback link). The company has generally been very encouraging towards fandom. Does that help?
- Whatever your decision, please also mark File:Katamari cake.jpg similarly (same item appears within). Thanks. :) Quiddity (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Encouraged or tolerated fandom would imply fair use only. --Simonxag (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Sourced to non governmental charity but tagged as U.S. Federal Government work --Infrogmation (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to pre-1964 PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like {{PD-US-no notice}} to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper cs. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not educational, not in use Uwe W. (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- This file was made with others photos (mine) and a free software, it's only an imagination work, I add that the category name is spacecraft in art. For you it seems that it's not very serious (I have seen your gallery and I understand).I will not cry for the deletion.
Best regards --Doalex (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Some words, this file is also here User:Doalex/Voyages. --Doalex (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. There are thousands of unused images on Commons, and not all of them are educational. The primary requirement for images is that they be licensed under a free license, and this one is. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not educational, not in use Uwe W. (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- This file was made with others photos (mine) and a free software, it's only an imagination work, I add that the category name is spacecraft in art. For you it seems that it's not very serious (I have seen your gallery and I understand).I will not cry for the deletion. Best regards --Doalex (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some words, this file is also here User:Doalex/Voyages.--Doalex (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Terrible aesthetic. Not suitable for wikis at all - cramped, overbold fonts, unnecessary and extreme colour use. If you want to have a table for this, use wikisytax (see wikipedia:Help:Table). Newman Luke (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep used --Simonxag (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep used - unless there is a better file, it should be kept Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- comment plain wiki-formatted text is a better file.Newman Luke (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment - no good reason for deletion given, the high resolution file is very good (technically) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
although a table in Wikisyntax would be better Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Per en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-16/Bulgarian_award, this is a statuette by sculptor Ivo Arnaudov, making this an unfree derivative work of the copyrighted statuette. Sandstein (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't overdo. →Spiritia 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you'll be able to get a written permission by the sculptor, that he doesn't mind for this "photo" by user:Мико to be published with proper attribution and under a selected free license. --5ko (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I immediately contacted the founder of the competition and chief of the jury, Mrs. Justine Toms with request to pass me contact data of Mr. Arnaudov. She declared that in the contract with the sculptor, he conceded all rights and now she is the copyright holder. (The author himself has emmigrated long ago to Canada and she is not in touch with him.) Of course, that she agreed that the photo of the prize can be published under the licenses, chosen by Miko. It was even sort of a surprise for her that such a problem has been raised about it. Yesterday evening I asked her to send to the OTRS team a written permission via her official bgsite.org e-mail address, and I am also eager to understand what the decision will be, once they have it... →Spiritia 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- A permission has now been received at [2]. Although it's from a Foundation claiming to have obtained the copyright from the sculptor, and refers only to the licencing of the photo, not of the underlying sculpture itself, it's probably sufficient for our purposes. Sandstein (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your cooperation. →Spiritia 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- A permission has now been received at [2]. Although it's from a Foundation claiming to have obtained the copyright from the sculptor, and refers only to the licencing of the photo, not of the underlying sculpture itself, it's probably sufficient for our purposes. Sandstein (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I immediately contacted the founder of the competition and chief of the jury, Mrs. Justine Toms with request to pass me contact data of Mr. Arnaudov. She declared that in the contract with the sculptor, he conceded all rights and now she is the copyright holder. (The author himself has emmigrated long ago to Canada and she is not in touch with him.) Of course, that she agreed that the photo of the prize can be published under the licenses, chosen by Miko. It was even sort of a surprise for her that such a problem has been raised about it. Yesterday evening I asked her to send to the OTRS team a written permission via her official bgsite.org e-mail address, and I am also eager to understand what the decision will be, once they have it... →Spiritia 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you'll be able to get a written permission by the sculptor, that he doesn't mind for this "photo" by user:Мико to be published with proper attribution and under a selected free license. --5ko (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.vivemagdalena.tk is the watermark on the image. This second image has the watermark cropped off. (I am nominating the other ones with the watermark with the copyvio template, but as this has a derivative, I thought it clearer to mention it here) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- True, but the rights holder on the source website carries the same name as the uploader (Marden Nolasco). Maybe it's just a missing permission. --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacking suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In the big version on http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/ginga/ginga1.gif you can read that it is from: “The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Ministery of Education, Science and Culture” So it should be from Japan. --Uwe W. (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I took a close look at the big image and your are right that it contains the phrase “The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture”. However, there is no copyright comment at Heasarc regarding any of the images of Ginga which leads me to believe that no copyright infringement has occurred. The important point here is Credit: for the image which should go to “The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Ministery of Education, Science and Culture” in our use of any of their images. This does not require the images be deleted but rather that the credit lines be amended accordingly. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've since accessed the MEXT site for the agency currently handling the duties of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture to find Ginga satellite pictures, searched it and found none. Can anyone search the Japanese version for this image to determine whether HEASARC acquired the image with/without copyright adherence. As the agency has changed since this image was produced, policies may have changed also that only apply to images after the change. Images already in the Public Domain cannot be subsequently copyrighted. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No clear proof of PD status. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If author of this work from 1929 is unknown, how is it known that it is PD-Old? --Infrogmation (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment In order to be in copyright, this would have had to have been published with a copyright notice and the copyright renewed. --Simonxag (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Apparently this is the cover or a page from a record catalogue, but taken not from the original but from a reprint in a later book. I don't see we have enough information to determine if it was published with a copyright notice at present. The only way I know of to find out for sure one way or the other is if someone can check a copy of the original 1929 publication. -- 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, even if it had a notice, it was almost certainly not renewed. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
black/white and hence out of project scope, could be anything, not used anyway. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is a typical Yikrazuul deletion request. By "black/white and hence out of project scope, could be anything, not used anyway" you could delete 25 % or even 50 % of all Bundesarchive images. Usually black/white, without description they could be anything, unused. But what reason to delete is this anyway? It's like saying: The picture shows a boat, delete it. So... the picture shows a boat?!
I really would like to know what the intention of this deletion request is. Is it to improve commons? But how is this gonna happen? It is quite worthless to argue why this picture should not be deleted, if the reason why it should be deleted is not clear. Btw the picture is used in the dutch wikipedia, but that just as a side note. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Info And this is a typical Cwbm response showing that he is not skilled and experienced in chemistry. In contrast to b/w photos of the Bundesarchive images, this pictures should show the composition of characteristcs of a dry chemical. So some key properties should be identifiable, but they aren't:- Which color does the chemical component have? We donna know, could be yellow, green, rosa, white, light-blue....
- Which characteristics does the powder (?) have? We donna konw, could be some kind of needles, crystals, just a powder,....
- Is the resolution high enough to identify anything usefull? Definitely no!
- Should we keep something like that: Definitely NO! It could be anything, maybe cocaine! --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment A white powder stays a white powder even in a black and white image. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What about moving to a less specific name, e.g. “Open can containing a white powder.jpg”? --Leyo 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you know that this is "white"? This info comes not from the picture? But anyway we could rename it "Strange can with something in in black and white". --Yikrazuul (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral it's a completely worthless picture, but if it's in use, it's in use, I guess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's better than nothing, but if we have a colored pictured of the same compound I agree with deletion. --Aushulz (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. The stuff is white anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, but renamed to Magnesiumcitrat (b&w).jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Images of Jeremybliss
[edit]- File:Bishop Dorai greeting the Archbishop.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bishop Dorai with the Archbishop.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Civic Reception by the Mayor Aberdeen Diocese for the Guest Bishops of the Pre Lambeth,Scotland.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSI Bishops at Lambeth.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I think that User:Jeremybliss is not the author of any of the files he has uploaded on Commons. It is quite an uncommon thing to upload a completely different image as a new version of a file or to blank the page, if one has previously created the image by oneself and willingly released it under a free license on Commons. Second, some of the horse photos ("new versions") are of very low resolution and do look as if they were photoshopped. So they are most likely to be taken from the Internet. This makes me think that the initial photos are all copyvios as well. --Blacklake (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
_________________
Deleted/Curupt--Fanghong (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Tagged as a work of the U.S. Federal Government, but sourced to March of Dimes, a non-governmental charity origanization. --Infrogmation (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The March of Dimes was a fundraising segment of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis[3] and when first established it was a "quasi-governmental" organization[4], similar to the founding of the Red Cross, Smithsonian Institution, Public Broadcasting Corp, etc. It did not become independent of the U.S. government until at least 4 months after its creation. Polio historian Jane S. Smith even mentions that the White House chief of mail stated, "The Government of the United States darned near stopped functioning because we couldn't clear away enough dimes to find the official White House mail. . . . We got fifty extra postal clerks. . ."[1]
- In any case, whether or not they copyrighted these publicity images is not clear, so I did a comprehensive search for any images that they may have copyrighted from 1950 onward to see if they were renewed. I found no photos of Salk, and few photos of anything else, that had a renewal filed at any time since 1978 (28 years after 1950.) It would seem that a revision of the licensing to "pre-1964" for the PD would be acceptable. In the alternative, we could just remove it from the Commons and keep the image as a PD file. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting bits of history. However note that "quasi-governmental" does not equal "a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code". Please don't guess what licenses might be. If you can demonstrate a useful image is PD for some reason or another, put the correct information and tag on the image. If not, it doesn't belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want me to change to tags to "pre-1964" per my comment? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the license per above rationale. If this did not follow procedure, OK to revert. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want me to change to tags to "pre-1964" per my comment? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That appears to be the right tag, presuming you have evidence the copyright was not renewed. Do you? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, please explain to me what needs to be done to keep the pictures of "Thank you, Dr. Salk," and the image of the March of Dimes poster child on the Jonas Salk page. I'm happy to do whatever legal research/verification/permission is required. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- That appears to be the right tag, presuming you have evidence the copyright was not renewed. Do you? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The proof is mentioned above as a search showed no such image being renewed. In fact, I could find no copyright filed for the news image even when published, which is typical of the thousands of news photos that are published every day. Only a handful of periodicals have bothered to renew copyrights, such as Life magazine and Time. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wikiwatcher. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per above.—DMCer (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
References
[edit]
- ↑ Smith, Jane S. Patenting the Sun, Morrow, 1990 p. 74-75
per Wikiwatcher1 Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No evidence provided to support the claim that this photo was first published without a copyright notice. Damiens.rf 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep speedy. Read! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept While Damiens' nomination comment is accurate, it is also irrelevant. Our keeping this image does not rest on no-notice, but on no-renewal. This is a 1955 image, so Wikiwatcher's "comprehensive search" was easy and very likely accurate, because the database after 1978 is on line (1955 image would be renewed circa 1983). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Not Federal Government work per source --Infrogmation (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The March of Dimes was a fundraising segment of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis[5] and when first established it was a "quasi-governmental" organization[6], similar to the founding of the Red Cross, Smithsonian Institution, Public Broadcasting Corp, etc. It did not become independent of the U.S. government until at least 4 months after its creation. Polio historian Jane S. Smith even mentions that the White House chief of mail stated, "The Government of the United States darned near stopped functioning because we couldn't clear away enough dimes to find the official White House mail. . . . We got fifty extra postal clerks. . ."[1]
- In any case, whether or not they copyrighted these publicity images is not clear, so I did a comprehensive search for any images that they may have copyrighted from 1950 onward to see if they were renewed. I found no photos of Salk, and few photos of anything else, that had a renewal filed at any time since 1978 (28 years after 1950.) It would seem that a revision of the licensing to "pre-1964" for the PD would be acceptable. In the alternative, we could just remove it from the Commons and keep the image as a PD file. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to pre-1964 PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wikiwatcher. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
References
[edit]
- ↑ Smith, Jane S. Patenting the Sun, Morrow, 1990 p. 74-75
per Wikiwatcher1 Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The license tag says, the image "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963". The source is however of 1990. What do we know when and where this image was published between 1923 and 1963 so that the license will become valid? Martin H. (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Now noted the deletion request above, not satisfactorily. The research was done in direction of the photo, the copyright can also gained and restored also if the image was first published in one of the million newspapers of the U.S. or if the photo was not published. The research for a copyright on a single photo does not justify any PD claim for this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lead image to the Jonas Salk article is from a magazine that includes 16 other photos that are very similar to this one and obviously taken at the same time by the same photographer. One shows him in nearly the identical pose, except holding up the tray of test tubes instead of just one. Any of those photos could also be used as PD. Note that copyrights are not restored (renewed) by republication, but by a filing of a renewal with the copyright office with fees, and for the photo itself. As mentioned in the previous deletion request, no renewals were filed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Similar is not the same. The similarity is maybe a good starting point to find out where this was first published and if a copyright was filled for that publication, but the similarity to other images where the (first?) publication and non-compliance with copyright requirements is demonstrated does not mean that any of those photos could also be used as PD. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The publication was not renewed as mentioned in the lead image description. Nor are there any renewals on file for any photos of Jonas Salk. Confirmation of that can be done online, BTW. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean with "The publication". Smith, Jane S.: Patenting the sun: polio and the Salk vaccine, 1990, is the only publication you mention for this image in question. --Martin H. (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright on "Wisdom" was not renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- And this photo is from that magazine? Wikiwatcher1 only argues that it is similar to the photo on the magazine cover, not that it is from that magazine. If it was first published in that magazine you should write this in the source field and thereby confirm that this image was published in Wisdom Magazine, Aug. 1956 (Vol 1, No. 8) and that the copyright was not renewed. If it was published in that magazine my intital question is answered. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The exact image was not in the magazine, as mentioned earlier. The image in question was from the Smith book. I could also simply upload the magazine photo of him holding up the tray of test tubes, which came for the PD magazine, but this one is apparently also PD based on the first deletion request explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was adressed above already, you can not judge this by similarity, and from your above rational "I did a comprehensive search for any images that they may have copyrighted" I assume that you have wrong impression of the public domain and possibly you not know that
- 1) an unpublished 1955 image does not require any registration but will be in copyright if published only after 1978 (with notice untill 1989) for maybe 70 years following the authors death and
- 2) a registration is not required for the unpublished photo but for the publication, e.g. a magazine. If you dont even know of any purplication, only a 1990 publication wich speaks for a copyright 70 years following the authors death or for a corporate work the year 2085, then you can not conclude to a license tag that claims this work published in a specified period of time.
- Similar photos, maybe from the same shooting, beeing public domain already is completely meaningless and does not allow for any conclusion. Year and location of publication is essential source information here, so it is also written in COM:L#Material in the public domain. Pieter already uploaded the cover, so at least there will be an replacement. --Martin H. (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Further to Martin's point -- the fact that a very similar image from the same shoot was published makes it more likely that this one was not -- magazines do not usually print two very similar images, even though their photographer may have taken dozens. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The exact image was not in the magazine, as mentioned earlier. The image in question was from the Smith book. I could also simply upload the magazine photo of him holding up the tray of test tubes, which came for the PD magazine, but this one is apparently also PD based on the first deletion request explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- And this photo is from that magazine? Wikiwatcher1 only argues that it is similar to the photo on the magazine cover, not that it is from that magazine. If it was first published in that magazine you should write this in the source field and thereby confirm that this image was published in Wisdom Magazine, Aug. 1956 (Vol 1, No. 8) and that the copyright was not renewed. If it was published in that magazine my intital question is answered. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright on "Wisdom" was not renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean with "The publication". Smith, Jane S.: Patenting the sun: polio and the Salk vaccine, 1990, is the only publication you mention for this image in question. --Martin H. (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The publication was not renewed as mentioned in the lead image description. Nor are there any renewals on file for any photos of Jonas Salk. Confirmation of that can be done online, BTW. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Similar is not the same. The similarity is maybe a good starting point to find out where this was first published and if a copyright was filled for that publication, but the similarity to other images where the (first?) publication and non-compliance with copyright requirements is demonstrated does not mean that any of those photos could also be used as PD. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - if there is a good alternative, without copyright doubts, please upload that alternative - Jcb (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
License and source cannot both be accurate, per above listing. --Infrogmation (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The March of Dimes was a fundraising segment of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis[7] and when first established it was a "quasi-governmental" organization[8], similar to the founding of the Red Cross, Smithsonian Institution, Public Broadcasting Corp, etc. It did not become independent of the U.S. government until at least 4 months after its creation. Polio historian Jane S. Smith even mentions that the White House chief of mail stated, "The Government of the United States darned near stopped functioning because we couldn't clear away enough dimes to find the official White House mail. . . . We got fifty extra postal clerks. . ."[1]
- In any case, whether or not they copyrighted these publicity images is not clear, so I did a comprehensive search for any images that they may have copyrighted from 1950 onward to see if they were renewed. I found no photos of Salk, and few photos of anything else, that had a renewal filed at any time since 1978 (28 years after 1950.) It would seem that a revision of the licensing to "pre-1964" for the PD would be acceptable. In the alternative, we could just remove it from the Commons and keep the image as a PD file. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I revised the license per above discussion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wikiwatcher. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
References
[edit]
- ↑ Smith, Jane S. Patenting the Sun, Morrow, 1990 p. 74-75
per Wikiwatcher1 Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No evidence provided to support the claim that this photo was first published without a copyright notice. Damiens.rf 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep speedy. Read! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- No evidence of renewal is not evidence of no renewal. --Damiens.rf 18:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you did a search, it is. If a renewal does not exist, not sure what other form "evidence" would take. The renewal volumes are online; if you find a renewal record corresponding to this, it would be easy to re-nominiate in that event. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg. Published US works of this era have fallen into the public domain UNLESS 1)They had a valid copyright filed at the time of creation or first publication AND 2)That copyright was subsequently renewed. US copyright from this era are kept by the US Federal Government and are researchable. If a properly conducted search shows no evidence of renewal, there was no valid renewal per US law and the image is PD per US law. Infrogmation (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Post cards from User:Lysippos
[edit]These files are affected:
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, der mensch.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, main entrance.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, chinese pavilion.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, russian pavilion.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, sports ground.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, hall of sport and clothes.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, hercules avenue.jpg
- File:Hygiene exhibition 1911, bridge and power station.jpg
The case is that these files are from 1911 an the author is unknown (Lysippos can´t be the author because you don´t gain any copyright through a simple scan). So we don´t know anything about the copyright status (surely GFDL and CC-by-sa are wrong). Chaddy (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- To correct the author shouldn't be a problem, should it? The real problem is to find an author, as Max Fischer e.q. probably wasn't a photographer but a Dresden based publisher. That's what I found. In case the photographers weren't named which is normal for photos of that time I'd recommend to put the photos under {{anonymous-EU}}. It's not very likely that someone would claim a copyright violation. --Eva K. is evil 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - this museum also only gives the publisher; I will adjust author and licences (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This image has changed and can't considered as encyclopedic. Also, source of this file is book "Urartu" by Piotrovskiy and not "Armenien, einst und jetzt" by Lehmann-Haupt. Original you can see there: wikireality.ru/w/images/1/1b/Urartu_piotrovsky_140.jpg.--Ole Førsten (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Everything is ok with the sources, please, look here for the full discussion. Please explain the other issue in more detail, I do not understand the problem. EvgenyGenkin (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, PD-Art. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This image isn't original. It's coloured and reverted image. It's can't considered as encyclopedic. Original and changed work you can see there: wikireality.ru/w/images/5/5a/Urartu_Chariot_D_1.jpg.--Ole Førsten (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see the problem. First of all the original helmet was symmetrical and bronze. The fact that I took an old black and white picture and edited it closer to reality makes it more "encyclopedic", not less. And since the helmet is symmetrical it contained identical chariots riding left and right. EvgenyGenkin (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Это не шлем, а колчан. По версии Б.Б.Пиотровского, 1959, стр. 265, врезка XLI: (правая часть) - "Изображение всадников и колесниц на колчане с надписью Аргишти сына Менуа. Кармир-блур. Исторический музей Армении". http://community.livejournal.com/ru_wikipedia/1010504.html Симметричный ли колчан, или содержит на обороте совсем другое изображение, и какой у него цвет, нужно выяснить путем фотографирования в музее.
- 2) Изображения точно (включая мелкие дефекты изображения и особенности освещения) совпадают с книгой Пиотровского, за исключением окраски, зеркального отражения и очевидно замазанного в фотошопе отверстия на туловище всадника.
- 3) Изображение очевидно содержит типографский растр (муар), хотя и размытый. Вы ведь не будете утверждать, что сделали его сами? Если это скан, то надо указать, откуда он был взят. Из этой же книги Пиотровского Вы взяли множество других изображений, иногда указывая ссылку на этот источник, а иногда - нет. 109.188.248.11 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- This image has a very serious problem. It was taken from a book (copyrighted?), inverted (what for???) and artificially colored. If the book image is not copyrighted it may be used, but image distortion and artificial coloration does not make any sense and is borderline to falsification. V zilov (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- This link shows how the image was modified from the original. V zilov (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-Old. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
