Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/27
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
Out of scope: Commons is not an image host for private pictures. Pruneautalk 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Adding all other pictures uploaded by this user:
- File:Kopciuszek wersja Jagódki.jpg
- File:Stona tytułowa Kopciuszka Jagódki.jpg
- File:Praca literacka Jagódki.jpg
- File:Praca literacka 2 Jagódki.jpg
- File:Praca literacka 3 Jagódki.jpg
- File:Praca literacka 4 Jagódki.jpg
- File:Praca literacka 7 Jagódki.jpg
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Converted from speedy deletion. Given reason was: "Copyrighted toy design". –blurpeace (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, Guil2027 (talk · contribs) was the original nominator. –blurpeace (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep, per {{FoP-China}}. –blurpeace (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)- Delete, per Nard the Bard. Misconception of Chinese Freedom of Panorama on my part. –blurpeace (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There is only one requirement in Chinese FoP (besides the standard reservation of moral rights and attribution), that the object be in an "outdoor public place". There isn't even a restriction that it be permanently located. This sign isn't located outside, see [1]. -Nard the Bard 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Guil2027 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope, see [2] Tekstman (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope, see [3] Tekstman (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal file. -Nard the Bard 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Infoboxes can be made directly on Wikipedia. Pruneautalk 14:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is not a personal web host. Pruneautalk 14:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the copyright holder - flickrvio. Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Watermarked, probably copyvio. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Converted from speedy deletion. Given reason was: "unknown band from chile or spain - unusable - out of scope". –blurpeace (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, Cholo Aleman (talk · contribs) was the original nominator. –blurpeace (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, realistically educates people. Being unused does not necessarily make an image outside of our project scope. –blurpeace (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal image - nothing particularly educational --Simonxag (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image of non-notable person; might even have personality rights issues. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern Japanese statues. This is certainly modern art. It also failed flickrreview. Leoboudv (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not freely licensed and derivative work of copyrighted artwork. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to modification restrictions, this image is non-free and should not be on Commons Rockfang (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete restriction was placed there by uploader right from the start. --Simonxag (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not freely licensed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Image is not used on any wikipedia articles and failed flickrreview. Perhaps it is better to delete if the flickrowner does not change the license. Any ideas? Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that this was ever freely licensed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is barely used on a German wiki article and on 1 talkpage only. Since it failed flickrreview, its deletion is no great loss to Commons....unless Admin Raymond knew that it was truly cc by sa with no Non-Commercial restriction at upload here. Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I have had an e-mail exchange with the photographer in April 2008 about this image because it raised my suspicion. But the flickr user is identical to the Wikipedian de:User:Threedots and he confirmed the license: Das Foto auf Flickr ist definitv von mir, [...] die Lizenz CC-by-sa ist also schon richtig. (rough translation: "The image on Flickr is definitly from me and the license CC-by-SA is correct"). I have forwarded the e-mail today to OTRS, ticket 2009112710039489 and added the permission to the file description page. Raymond 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep OK thanks for the note Raymond. I withdraw my deletion request here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. License verified by OTRS. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. There's no indication that the mass-transit system has liberally licensed the original sign. Chaser (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I (the uploader and “photographer”) have been discussing this with Chaser here. Tuvalkin (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an "official" portrait, the original ruwiki uploader hardly can be the copyright holder --Blacklake (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely own work. Moiré indicates that this may have been scanned from a newspaper or grabbed of a TV broadcast. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Definitely it's not just a simple text, but more artistic sophisticated composition. No well known font was used, neither general composition is not built just from simple geometric shapes. In my opinion PD-shape was abused here. Masur (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me more nagging. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete that's an artwork, it's copyrighted and unlicensed. --Simonxag (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not PD-shape. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
All three pictures from this uploader are orphaned blurry personal band pictures Wknight94 talk 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Might even be a copyvios as it looks like a screengrab. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
All three pictures from this uploader are orphaned blurry personal band pictures Wknight94 talk 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Might even be a copyvios as it looks like a screengrab. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
All three pictures from this uploader are orphaned blurry personal band pictures. Wknight94 talk 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Might even be a copyvios as it looks like a screengrab. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
not personal work of user:Mpmpmp Probably copy of a poster under copyright Manu (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Scan might be own work, but the actual copyrighted work has likely not been created by the uploader. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
personal work, for flickr Manu (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Personal image, in use on the user's user page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
not personal work of user:Mpmpmp Probably copy of a poster under copyright Also on here http://www.lamblin.com/vignoble.htm and www.version-vin.com Manu (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted poster. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
not personal work of user:Mpmpmp. Probably copy of a poster under copyright. Also on here http://www.lamblin.com/vignoble.htm and www.version-vin.com Manu (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted poster. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
permission ~Lukas talk 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No reason to assume this is freely licensed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
no indication flickr license is correct. --Klodl (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its a clear flickwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously a postcard, unlikely own work by the Flickr user. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo of unknown subject. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I don't even know what this is. Appears to be out of project scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo of unknown subject. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Author's only upload, orphaned, apparent personal logo with no obvious use. Out of scope. Wknight94 talk 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal file not in user on a user page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unknown photographer from 1945. We can't keep this image. Its a flickrwash. Leoboudv (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I really resent dictatorial, discourteous, and presumptuous proclamations such as User Leoboudv's that "We can't keep this image. Its a flickrwash." Baloney. WE can and will. It is my photo. The photo is uncopyrighted. I uploaded it to both Flickr and Commons in the best of faith. It is a viable photo and has great objective value for its quality representation of its subject. And I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the photo is retained on Commons.Northbreed1 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The given source (http://www.flickr.com/photos/27880208@N04/4139041204/) is uninteresting. Whats the original source? The image not suddenly appeared on your flickr, so where do you got or toke the image from? The given license is also not interesting because it is invalid. Only the copyright holder can provide a licensing, so the image must be public domain according to COM:L, it must be freely licensed by the copyright holder and not by someone else or it must go from Commons. Is the image public domain according to an aplicable reason in COM:L or is it freely licensed by the copyright holder? --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I have 1 question. If this is own work, who is Northbreed1? A family descendant of the photographer or the photographer himself/herself? There is no one named which makes such photos somewhat suspicious. Sorry, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the image is under a free license (in accordance with our licensing policy), please confirm the permission. You can confirm the permission by e-mailing our volunteer response team, who will get back to you. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs OTRS verification. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a clear flickrwash as this shows. Image should be licensed as 'ARR.' on flickr. Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your "reasoning" here at all, Leoboudv and really resent your presumption and unhelpful interference. It is my photo. The photo is uncopyrighted. I uploaded it to both Flickr and Commons in the best of faith. It is a viable photo and has great objective value for its quality representation of its subject. And I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the photo is retained on Commons.Northbreed1 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loiscollier1.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- No hits on LOC, NARA, or Tineye. Must be an original photo, but it presents the orphan works problem. -Nard the Bard 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs OTRS verficiation. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
unsued, useless, only a test Frédéric (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
__________________________________
Deleted / Corrupt file.--Fanghong (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Images of Category:John Quinlan (wrestler)
[edit]- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 1998 File Photo.gif
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 9-1998 3.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 9-1998 4.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 9-1998 5.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 9-1998 6.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan 9-1998.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan On Stage Side Tricep Pose.jpg
- File:Bodybuilder John Quinlan at The 1998 Junior USA's.jpg
- File:John Quinlan 11-1999.jpg
- File:John Quinlan 1998 Nationals 10.jpg
- File:John Quinlan 1998 Nationals 8.gif
- File:John Quinlan 1998 Nationals 9.jpg
- File:John Quinlan Nationals 1.jpg
- File:John Quinlan Nationals 2.gif
- File:John Quinlan Springfield College 1997.jpg
- File:John Quinlan.GIF
- File:Peter Karalekas.gif
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan & Manager Miss IIXtreme File Photo 2000.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 1-2000.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 1999 File Photo.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 2000 In Ring File Photograph.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 2000 Tag Match Intro.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 2001 Television Taping.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 3-2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 6-2000 Photo.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 7-2000.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 4-2000.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan Intermission Photo 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan March 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan Photograph Taken From 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan Ring Shot 3-2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan Ringside Photo 2-2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan Steel Cage Match File Photo.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Irish Shane O'Kane at Ringside 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane & The Boston Brawler in 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane (masked) 2001.gif
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane (unmasked) Summer 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane 2001 File Photo.gif
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane 7-2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane Irish Flag Promo Photo 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler The Boston Brawler With John Quinlan in 2001.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 2001 Television Taping.jpg
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan 3-2001.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan 3-31-2001.gif
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan Autograph Signings.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan House Show Intermission 2001.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan June 2000 File Photo.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan March 2001 House Show Entrance.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan Post Match File Photo.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan Post Match Photo From April 2000.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan Post Match Signings 2000.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan Powerbombed Through Table On Pavement In Front of 14,000 Fans.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler's John Quinlan & The Boston Brawler (Jerry Bowser).jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler's Tony Roy, The Boston Brawler & John Quinlan in 2001.jpg
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan as Shane O'Kane 2001.gif
I am personally outraged at the fact these image files were uploaded without my knowledge! Several friends have access to this account/password which is owned by me simply to modify it when they see fit. About a month ago I found out that a friend went in and uploaded these horrible quality images (all of which I NEVER would have approved to upload here on Commons) as well as personal photos for private scrapbook use. I personally have to much respect for the project for a stunt like this! I feel violated having my photos uploaded without my consent. I have wanted to notify Commons right away but have been pressed for time as of late. Please remove these image files immediatley due to the nature in which they were added......without the consent of me the sole owner and person being wrongfully depicted in these images. I know Commons will do the ethically right thing and remove these images as soon as possible because it is a very well respected project with good humane values. Thank you very much and I look forward to the resolution of this mishap,
Jaderocker (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In addition to whatever problems there are with the individual images, it seems that your account is compromised, and being used by others without your permission? This is certainly something that needs to be resolved. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I had previously given others the password to use on this account to modify it when they had addition information to add to it. Unfortunately some of these people can't be trusted because they went in without my knowledge and uploaded photos of horrible quality and photos I never would have approved because they are private scrapbook photos. I have just changed the password on this account so it is now secure and look forward to all these images marked for deletion to be DELETED as soon as possible. Thank you for your input.
Jaderocker (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per uploader request. Irrespective of quality, we cannot take any of these as being freely licensed as we have no way of telling who actually uploaded them. --Simonxag (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Simonxag! I just added 2 more file images to this list to be deleted. I think that's all of them. Yeah, the guy used my password to go in and upload some private pro wrestling pics! So wrong! Some people have nerve and no respect for others. Thanks again man!
Jaderocker (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line, somebody leaked my password and they uploaded these photos WITHOUT CONSENT! Password has been securely changed and look forward to these file images to be RIGHTFULLY deleted!
Jaderocker (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Images of Category:John Quinlan (wrestler)
[edit]- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan 3-2001.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Professional Wrestler John Quinlan 2001 Television Taping.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pro Wrestler John Quinlan In Ring File Photo 2000.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images should have been deleted already with all the rest but they were titled wrong in the previous deletion request so they are unfortunately still there. These are the correct titles above. They should have been titled correctly in the first place in:
Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category John Quinlan (wrestler)
The reason for the deletion of these image files is the same as all of the image files in the category above.....uploaded without proper consent of owner. Deletion of these image files ASAP would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your time and appreciated effort along with the rest of the editors here on commons,
Jaderocker (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Jaderocker. The quicker the better. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
deleted Huib talk 09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope (local cardealer ship) Tekstman (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
1949 is not even 70 years ago, so the selected license must be wrong. Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I got this image from this page, The Argus, Illinois Wesleyan of January 1949. Please help me find a suitable license tag. --GnuDoyng (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think I made a mistake. The newspaper was issued in 1949. That does not mean that the year of the work was 1949. --GnuDoyng (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If this was a 1940's photo, a possible licenses might be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Or if it was originally published in China {{PD-China}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence of no-notice. Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Francine Somers did not die 70 years ago or more. Sv1xv (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep He died in 1899, as reported in the photo. --Dorieo (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- H. Evenpoel died in 1899. The relief was created by Francine Somers (1923-). Still alive I'm afraid. [4] Sv1xv (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably unfree logo; replaced in de-WP by SVG version. --Leyo 11:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- and this also: File:Nikitas 1.JPG with same guerilla Iconoclast (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not public domain yet, no FOP in Finland A333 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope, see[5] Tekstman (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope, see [6] Tekstman (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope, see[7] Tekstman (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that the subject of the image is correctly identified. Although the image is identified on the Library of Congress site as that of Mary McLeod Bethune at the Phyllis Wheatly YWCA in Washington, DC, July 1943, the female in the photo does not look like Ms. Bethune. Ms. Bethune appears in at least three other photos that appear to have been taken at the same event and is wearing a different dress than the female in this picture. I think the LoC caption refers to the entire collection of pictures of the event and does not necessarily identify the woman in the uploaded image. I am the uploader. Cuppysfriend (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete You could have also mentioned this woman is skinny, young, and fairly light complected whereas Ms. Bethune is older, fat, and darker. -Nard the Bard 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a NASA image, but a NASA joint project and not public domain. Please see the copyright terms linked in the exif. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the Chandra X-ray Observatory Conditions of Use of Images, Products or Technologies (materials) page says url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes. Please credit images to "NASA/CXC/SAO" unless other credits are given." This as I understand it means they have given permission for the use of this specific image for non-commercial educational and public information purposes. Now I'm not a copyright lawyer, but if others feel that permission must be requested, the site does offer "To request permission to use Chandra images, video or other media, please use our Permission Request Form." So let me know if the latter is required when the image is for non-commercial educational and public information purposes. I will be happy to fill out the form and indicate where image is on Wikipedia. Marshallsumter (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add another point. When I initially go to any site for possible upload of an image I make a habit of looking for the © copyright logo so as to avoid what may have happened here. Also, if you take a look at the file itself: url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/0065/index.html you will see no copyright notice. I believe what has happened is that in the past they may have been copyrighting some images, then stopped doing it. Someone probably forgot to take the software tag off this image. As the copyright question only surfaced when I uploaded the image to Wikipedia. I am willing to contact the caretaker about that specific figure; however, I would like feedback. No feedback - no help! This is an image that is helpful to factual presentation of information on Wikipedia. So, feel free to add comments. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom (unless there is permission), but may be fair use on the English Wikipedia where it is being used. --Simonxag (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I filled out the request form and submitted it. The thank you stated I would receive a response in a few days, so I request image not be deleted before then say 12/23/09. 68.104.158.19 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have received a response to my request with respect to this image:
Permission Request (December 18, 2009, 2:36 pm):
Request: Image of Sirius A and B: A Double Star System In The Constellation Canis Major URL(s): http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/0065/index.html Media Type: Image Science Category: White Dwarfs & PNE Purpose: As an image in the Wikipedia article, \"X-1 X-ray source\"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-1_X-ray_source, for a comparison with Hubble Telescope Image of Sirius A & B.
Any image on our web site wholly attributed to NASA is considered public information and may be used without fee or copyright restriction. Please use the credit as you see it with the image on our site.
Sincerely, Kathleen Lestition Outreach Coordinator Chandra X-ray Center
As such I respectfully request that this nomination for deletion be withdrawn and the image allowed to remain in Wikimedia and in the above article as well as any others that it may be used in the future. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because I didn't know, I looked and learned that the the CXC is The Chandra X-ray Center operated for NASA by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, contracted by NASA. It also says that one of their "prime contractor[s]" is Northrop Grumman Space Technology, NGST. However, they are a space contractor, and the site's image use statement is crystal clear. (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html) I second the request for withdrawal of this deletion, and would suggest that there are more important things to be looking for/cleaning up in Wikiland. Peacedance (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Marshallsumter. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The previous close was incorrect. Let's look at the "crystal-clear" licensing terms. http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html says "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes. Please credit images to "NASA/CXC/SAO" unless other credits are given. In that case, credit the appropriate organization(s) or person(s) as they are listed with the image on our site." The non-commercial restriction is also mention in the file's exif. The "permission" obtained still doesn't identify the file as public domain, merely royalty free. That is NOT free enough for Commons. Also, the "Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory" is part of Harvard University[8] and is not a government agency. This is NOT A NASA IMAGE. -Nard the Bard 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting point! The image is credited to NASA/SAO/CXC per request. And, SAO is not a government agency. Nor, is Harvard University. The statement I quoted from above is from Kathy Lestition, whose name, address, and email shows up when clicking on http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html. As I understand your point, I need to ask her if this specific image Sirius_A_&_B_X-ray.jpg is public domain. Here is a copy of the message I am sending:
This message is for Kathy Lestition or others as needed.
I recently filled out, submitted, and received permission to use the image Sirius_A_&_B_X-ray.jpg on Wikipedia and it currently can be found here url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_B#Sirius_B. However, an additional question has arisen. While the other images produced by the Chandra X-ray Observatory are public domain, the image Sirius_A_&_B_X-ray.jpg carried with it a copyright holder link url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html downloaded and attached.
Is this jpg currently Public Domain?
Is it a wholly attributed NASA image?
Wikipedias copyright editors and attorneys are unsure. How can we fix this problem? Do I need to download a more recent version without this copyright holder link, or can you email me some statement directed specifically to this image that indicates it is public domain.
Message above has been sent to cxcedu@cfa.harvard.edu. I hope this helps and I will post response when received. I also attached a copy of the jpg. 66.248.36.201 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per precautionary principle. All we have are the licensing terms and they forbid commercial use. Can be restored once we receive OTRS confirmation, that this is PD. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)