Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Looks pretty like a promotion image, not as if it would have been self-made. See also this image's Tineye results (4). --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete copyrights by Getty Images Entertainment [1] --Justass (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong picture of family, and I am the Author Cvschmid (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image. Out of scope. --Elsa Baye (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not needed, personal file Cvschmid (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of COM:SCOPE family photo. Teofilo (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's my work and y don't want to share it. Uplaoding was a mistake Errorist (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt request by uploader saying upload was a mistake; image does not appear to be in project scope and seems to contain derivative copyrighted elements. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 60005768 Marronvrouw met scarificaties (kamemb.jpg
[edit]
See also File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 10019205 Marronvrouw met scarificaties (kamemb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.106.108 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete But note that it is a near-duplicate as the colour of the nominated file is darker than the other file. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete one is enough --Neozoon (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong spelling, correct is Category:Rhein in Flammen --Schängel (Diskussion) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC) --Schängel (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete but for this kind of deletion I think you can use {{Speedy}}. Teofilo (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted typo. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It has a watermark at the bottom-left, indicating that copyright belongs to www.steauafc.com. Unless the Flickr account belongs to the copyright holder, which apparently it doesn't, the Flickr user does not have the right to release this image under CC-BY-3.0 --—Andrei S. Talk 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete missing permission from the copyright holders. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose this is displayed only for Christmas, so it is not "permanenlty located". Nicht "bleibend". Keine Panoramafreiheit. Teofilo (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Artist died 1932. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- 'Keep'Withdrawn I misread the title, reading Oesterreicher (thinking this must be somewhere in Austria) instead of Osterrieder. Then checking the "author" information, I found only the uploader's name. Teofilo (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nom withdrew. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a press image from Riksgälden web site. They only say it can be used freely for editorial purposes. That is usually not free enough for Commons. Ö 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not free for any purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing of essential source information and/or permission. --High Contrast (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No proof of license. -Nard the Bard 20:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. Pruneautalk 10:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Originally marked as speedy for being derivative works. Uploader changed that to a normal deletion request, but didn't create the discussion page and list entry. I'm hereby fixing this. --Latebird (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:FOP#China. China only requires a work be visible in an "outdoor public place". Permanency etc are not required. -Nard the Bard 21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like good news, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned. Does such a billboard even have an individual author? Are there any precedents on how to handle such seemingly anonymous propaganda works? --Latebird (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't even read this. What does it say? -Nard the Bard 02:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like good news, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned. Does such a billboard even have an individual author? Are there any precedents on how to handle such seemingly anonymous propaganda works? --Latebird (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment I originally nominated both images for speedy deletion derivatives because the photos are of billboards, which unless I'm not seeing it right, both look like they feature 2 separate photos each, one of Deng and another of a background. My issue with these is that the photos that the billboards feature may still be copyrighted under Chinese law if they're less than 50 years old. I didn't feel that FOP in this context applied because the works were photographic as opposed to sculptural or buildings. However does FOP apply to 2D works like this also? COM:FOP to me seems to focus more on buildings and sculptures. --BrokenSphere 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Chinese copyright law applies FOP equally to all types of works (§22, item 10). --Latebird (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept per COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There is FoP for 2D works in China though? As long as the name of the work and the author are mentioned and as long as the work is located in a public space, 2D works are covered by FoP, unless they are murals or outdoor paintings. Billboards are neither murals nor outdoor paintings. Or am I misunderstanding the text on the Chinese FoP page? It says:
- "Article 24: In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name or designation of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the normal use of the work, or unreasonably damage the lawful rights and interests of the copyright owner shall not be affected:(10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in a public place;..." Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- See COM:FOP China. Teetrition (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I quoted. Which part are you referring to? Nakonana (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The end of that section, which read,
- Regarding 2D works like outdoor paintings permanently installed in public spaces and murals, a recent court case by Beijing IP court (2020) gave a negative decision: "The Court believes that the general use of 2D art works by copyright owners is relatively simple, that is, copying works, creating derivative works on the basis of the original works for commercial use or authorizing others to do so. If a 2D art work is displayed in a public place, others can freely use it for commercial purposes after photographing, drawing or copying, the licensing and copyright owner's income will be seriously threatened, then the normal use of the work will be affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner will be prejudiced." Teetrition (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- If it were a photo of a painting, or a photo of a photo, I'd agree. The FoP rules appear to be explicitly excluding murals and outdoor paintings — those are not covered by FoP. But that's a photo of a billboard — how could one possibly use this photo in a commercial way? A small part of it is covered by a car and the photo is taken at an angle, so, you can't use this photo to reprint it on a billboard of your own. You can't use it to print on postcards. It won't work for T-shirt prints either. The billboard in this photo does not appear usable on its own. It can only be used within the context of this photo, i.e. a newspaper could use the nominated photo as a whole to illustrate the billboard, but cropping the photo to only show the billboard won't really work, so I fail to see how the billboard depiction in this particular photo could be commercially used. If it could be used, then sure, that would be detrimental to the author's income. But if it can't be commercially used, then... FoP applies?
- What type of work was discussed in the 2020 ruling? Was it a mural or outdoor painting? Nakonana (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think you know "No one would use this commercially" is not reasonable in Wikimedia Commons otherwise Commons could accept images licensed under CC-NC as long as they would not be used commercially. In fact, the 2020 ruling is regarding a movie poster displayed outdoors and the defendant used an element of this poster. For the image nominated here, one can also possibly use some elements of this image, right? Teetrition (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I quoted. Which part are you referring to? Nakonana (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- See COM:FOP China. Teetrition (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Useless image, a star repeated many times for "effect" but not really needed. -Nard the Bard 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, useless, not in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unidentified people, unused image. -Nard the Bard 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 10:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio, band logo. -Nard the Bard 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Artistic logo. Sv1xv (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Too old to be own work. -Nard the Bard 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unless actual info and evidence of free license presented. Per nl:Frans ter Gast person shown died in 1970; uploader claims not possible. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Mistake in the name of the file Ivanpopoff (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Файл с таким именем уже существует. Я перезагружу точно такой же, но с другим именем Ivanpopoff
Deleted but not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really ready to believe this user's "own work" statement. http://www.tineye.com/search/41d866e3a895b84236bd1384dc38c5982e0d17ca --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded 6 December, obvious copyvio, could have been speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
useless : no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This Flickr user has all sorts of copyrighted content on his Flickr page. Unlikely to me that user is the creator. Image File:Chocobobox.gif by same uploader was speedy deleted a few hours earlier as copyright violation. Thuresson (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- the original uploader is Lycentia with CC-BY-SA license [2] (see below)--Mistwalker7 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/File:Userb_e100.gif){kind=link}
- No, the text contributions at Final Fantasy Wiki are licensed as CC-BY-SA, images are licensed separately. This image has no license information. Thuresson (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. That's anyway a Final Fantasy IV sprite, then it is copyrighted. ~ bayo or talk 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Only sourced to Wikipeda ( This may be a transfer from when Commons Helper had issues) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Renominate. Image is still unsourced. Uploader on en:W was notified and asked for info back in July. --Infrogmation (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Looks very pre-1923 to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody can easily tell that the image is pre-1923 but I don't recall the source (likely a photo I took of an exhibit at the Yosemite museum or an outside display). So I just uploaded File:Automobile in Yosemite Valley in 1914.jpeg, which has a known date, author and source. In short, I don't really care what happens to File:Early automobile in Yosemite Valley.jpeg now. --Mav (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No information on author or soure. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
it isn´t an own work, may be scanned of a newspapper --Esteban (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing source information for the individual images; only the collage appears to be own work. –Tryphon☂ 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's my work and y don't want to share it. Uplaoding was a mistake Errorist (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, prompt request by uploader; image does not seem to be within project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the large number of obviously false creation claims and web-resolution images from this uploader, I do not believe they are the creator of this work. --Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I was easily able to identify a couple of other previously undetected blatant copyright violations among the user's uploads. In my opinion, a thorough review of all the user's uploads would be in order. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Seems to be from here. No OTRS known. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment looks like image was taken from here (same EXIF, similar size), but museum may be firsthand source --Justass (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as a scaled down version of File:Machinezaal_05892040.jpg, which is kept because it has OTRS. Rocket000 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
just a book, no text Frédéric (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep it's a picture of a historical object and form of functional art. You've nominated three such pictures, and all three are distinct elegant works of art that together demonstrate some of the range of this practice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It might be a "private edition cover", means the original cover has been or destroyed or the owner has had all his books "re-packed". It is a historical piece belonging to a series of books by Annemarie von Nathusius and will find place in a ref listing. Pls keep. --Wistula (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Please stop these nominations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment which is not a helpful statement, since these set of nominations seems to have been complete five months ago, just never put into the deletion requests list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no reason to delete (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy deleteion request. Reason given by User:MilborneOne was: Taken at the same time as File:Turkish Air Force Boeing 737 AEW&C MESA Radar.jpg a copyright violation uploaded by the same user also refer http://img132.imageshack.us/i/turkishairforce001bvr7.jpg/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/smartjunco/1700431022/ --Sv1xv (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, along with File:Turkish LPD concept by Fincantieri at IDEF 2007.jpg, also uploaded by MilintelTR, a crop of an image copyright 2007-2009. [3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from [4] as already said in source --Mazbln (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparent personal photo with no educational use, not used anywhere. BrokenSphere 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparent personal photo with no educational use, not used anywhere. BrokenSphere 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparent personal photo with no educational use, not used anywhere. BrokenSphere 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite i marked this image as passed with a free license on flickreview, i opened this deletion request because as stated by the flickr source page this image is copyrighted by Adidas. However i question, as this flickr stream as original images with exif, if there is a remote change of Adidas license this materials there present under free licenses. Tm (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Tm (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The set where this image is, as some images sourced from here, a subpage of Adidas press page, so this might explain how they have acess to commercial quality images and advertisings from Adidas. Also this images on Adidas press page are marked as "For editorial use only! Additional clearance required for commercial, wireless or promotional use. Images may not be altered or modified."~. Tm (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it's the same adifansnet Flickr account that claims to represent Adidas (maybe they do). They host commercial quality images and advertisings from Adidas. There are ongoing DR about images from same source here and here, but so far no decision --Justass (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- After little research found adiFANSnet Facebook account that is linking to http://www.adifans.net same as Flickr, YouTube and so on. They describe themselves as "personal website" and "first Chinese-speaking region Adidas fans site"[5], so OTRS from Adidas AG would be welcome or delete --Justass (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Added http://www.flickr.com/photos/adifans/ to COM:QFI and deleted all images, clearly a fan account without any legal relations, as Justass pointed out and me thinks too (although I never received an answer from Adidas press department). Account hosts images of shoes from ebay websites as well as images from getty images, from addidas themself, from various agencies. --Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
png too big . jpg ok - upload this date done . Sechinsic (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, unclear deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Flickrwashing of another flickr image Tm (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
According to this deletion request:
This image, uploaded here in 15 of June 2008, is sourced to this flickr image uploaded to flickr on the same day, but, as seen on its talkpage on flickr, this image was copied without permission from here and marked "All Rights Reserved", uploaded on 24 of June 2007. Tm (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is also File:Condominio en Paseo De La Reforma.jpg from the same uploader, copyvio of http://www.flickr.com/photos/20269008@N00/124008959/ Teofilo (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment all those images were originally nominated for individual deletion requests under the same reason, but the situations were similar enough to justify simplifying maintenance by turning this into a mass deletion request and discussing them at a single page. However, the deprecated DR were not deleted but turned into redirects, so that messages at user talk pages were not broken (and other's talk pages shouldn't be edited for technical reasons, to avoid trigering unneeded "you have new messages" notices). Those redirects can be found with "What redirects here", and should be deleted when the discussion is done
- File:Bottles_ofCoca-Cola.jpg
- File:Coca-cola 50cl white-bg.jpg
- File:Coca Cola Zero 02.jpg
- File:Coke 003.jpg
- File:CaffeineFreeCoke.JPG
- File:CokeCitra.jpg
- File:CokeSango.jpg
- File:CocacolaOrange.jpg
- File:CokewithLemon.jpg
- File:Coca-Cola lata.jpg
- File:Cc blak.JPG
Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment all those images were originally nominated for individual deletion requests under the same reason, but the situations were similar enough to justify simplifying maintenance by turning this into a mass deletion request and discussing them at a single page. However, the deprecated DR were not deleted but turned into redirects, so that messages at user talk pages were not broken (and other's talk pages shouldn't be edited for technical reasons, to avoid trigering unneeded "you have new messages" notices). Those redirects should be deleted when the discussion is done
Keep "Often" but not always. Check File:Coca-Cola logo.svg, the classic Coca-Cola logo is itself in the public domain. If no other creative logos are involved, a photo of a Coca-Cola bottle has only the copyright of the one who takes the photo Belgrano (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete The bottle design itself and the other artistic elements on the label beyond the logo are creative works and automatically fall under copyright. A photograph of them is a derivative work. I see no way someone can simply photograph these designs and release that photograph into the public domain. The logo may have fallen into the public domain, but these are not simply pictures of logos. Chillum (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep at least File:Coca-Cola lata.jpg, which is the logo on the utilitarian shape of a standard can. Trademark notice seems sufficent for this case; possibly in some others here as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Very dissimilar cases; clearly File:CokewithLemon.jpg is lacking evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- What on there is copyrightable? The picture of the lemon? COM:DM -Nard the Bard 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The photo itself was not made by the uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of LancerEvolution's uploads seem to have this problem. I hope whoever closes this DR can separate the wehat from the chaff. -Nard the Bard 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Coca-Cola's logo and bottle design have fallen into the public domain. -Nard the Bard 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the logo being public domain, but the bottle design is far more modern. There are also creative elements to the design that go beyond just the logo that are far to recent to be in the public domain. I can see how your argument could apply to very old bottles, but many of these are new. Am I missing something fundamental? Chillum (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the "new" elements are simple fonts or simple geometric shapes, they don't attract copyright. So, {{PD-1923}} + {{PD-text}} = Public domain. Belgrano (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Much of it looks like art to me, not just simple geometric shapes. Clearly consensus is against my interpretation, but I cannot see these labels as anything other than a creative works. See the stylized logo on File:Cc blak.JPG and the olympic rings on File:Coca-cola_50cl_white-bg.jpg. Perhaps I just don't understand the relevant laws. Chillum (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The olimpic rings are themselves in the public domain as well. Belgrano (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Much of it looks like art to me, not just simple geometric shapes. Clearly consensus is against my interpretation, but I cannot see these labels as anything other than a creative works. See the stylized logo on File:Cc blak.JPG and the olympic rings on File:Coca-cola_50cl_white-bg.jpg. Perhaps I just don't understand the relevant laws. Chillum (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the "new" elements are simple fonts or simple geometric shapes, they don't attract copyright. So, {{PD-1923}} + {{PD-text}} = Public domain. Belgrano (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the logo being public domain, but the bottle design is far more modern. There are also creative elements to the design that go beyond just the logo that are far to recent to be in the public domain. I can see how your argument could apply to very old bottles, but many of these are new. Am I missing something fundamental? Chillum (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think I can't vote, but I have really taken this picture with my cell phone as you can see on the file's page, so I do not think of copyright failure. Sorry about my English, I know it is terrible, but I tried. Izmaelt (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody can vote (not really a vote anyway); your photo is fine Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody can vote (not really a vote anyway); your photo is fine
- Keep. Izmaelt (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Nard the Bard. Samwb123 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Nard the Bard and Belgrano. Jorge Barrios (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Three separate outcomes:
- File:Bottles_ofCoca-Cola.jpg
- File:Coca-cola 50cl white-bg.jpg
- File:Coca Cola Zero 02.jpg
- File:Coke 003.jpg
- File:CaffeineFreeCoke.JPG
- File:Coca-Cola lata.jpg
These six are kept. The only copyrightable element is the Coca-Cola logo, the copyright of which has expired, if it was ever copyrighted to begin with. The rest is just a standard bottle/can design or text in a utilitarian font.
These four are deleted by User:Martin H., as apparently the photos themselves are copyvios.
This is deleted by me, as the designs printed on the bottle are sufficiently creative to attract a copyright, which is still extant. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This file kept by me as the image consists mostly of the Coca-Cola logo, which is not copyrighted. I agree with Stifle re the deletion of File:Cc blak.JPG, as it contains other elements which could be covered by copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Not permanently located. No permission from artwork's designer. Teofilo (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a photo of a person to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- You may crop the picture to remove the artwork if you want. Teofilo (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The building is FOP, and the Piet is a person with a cloud and moon on a stick? Is that the art you refer to? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, whatever artwork is in the image, it's de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Scan of a page of a manual probably under copyright. --Duch.seb (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment 1960's manual, possibly not copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, with no additional information, there is no way we can determine whether it's PD-no-notice or the like. Kameraad Pjotr 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Out of scope. -Nard the Bard 20:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment "Illustration for The Handmaid's Tale, a novel by Margaret Atwood" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So, either a copyvio or fanfic. Hmm, Category:Symbols of the Deathly Hallows is allowed, so it may be in scope. -Nard the Bard 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Says it's a DOE image but no source given. (Dice que es del Departamento de Energia pero no se da la fuente) -Nard the Bard 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If uploader is the owner, it's vanity; if not, it's breach of copyright: http://www.flickr.com/photos/virgiawan/3866534769/ MPF (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like some vanity spam on en:User:D41212YL. 'll mark this as an userpageimage --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If uploader is the owner, it's vanity; if not, it's breach of copyright: http://www.flickr.com/photos/virgiawan/3292656928/ MPF (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Photos do not fall to any statements of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree Gryllida (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe {{PD-Russia-2008}} will do fine? The main thing is the entity that created the work (USSR Union of Cinematographers) not exist any more, so there's nobody to assign the copyright. --Yuriy Lapitskiy (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that "USSR Union of Cinematographers" didn't have any successor. Copyrights also may belong to photographer. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Eileen Gray died in 1976. Yes this is a chair and a chair is a "useful work" but furniture designer deserve the same level of protection as architects, I guess, although buildings are "useful works" too. Teofilo (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Here, we talk about a drawing based on an existing chair. So it's not a stolen picture but a personal representation. If this one must be suppressed, that's mean every single picture about design & architecture has to be removed, right ? cause 99% of design pieces & modern architecture which are in commons are made by people still alive or dead after the 60's... So, shall we suppress all of them ? Cyril5555 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork as an example of deletion of pictures of modern architectual works. Only in those countries which apply COM:FOP (freedom of Panorama) can we take photographs of modern architecture. Teofilo (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- But this is not a photograph + there is no relation with freedom of Panorama, as it is not a matter of visibility of the piece of work in a picture. This is related to the reproduction of a piece of work on a drawing for non-commercial use (of course). So again, if the 70 years rule applies for this... that's mean every single picture of buildings, designs, cars, films made by people dead after 1939 has to be removed ? Cyril5555 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some DR's were made for Starck's remote control, CD toaster, motorcycle, and alarm clock. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- for non-commercial use (of course) ? --> Be careful that you are not misunderstanding the policies of the Wikimedia projects. If you upload a picture here, it is possible that it will be used commercially. For example the people at fr:Projet:Impression are making money selling the pictures as posters. Teofilo (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- So is it possible to put another label saying this picture cannot be commercially used, then ? And my question is still "Why thousands of the last 70 years design, architecture car, film are not removed already ? Cyril5555 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No it is not possible. Not on Wikimedia Commmons. You can do that on Flickr if you want. "Why thousands of the last 70 years design, architecture car, film are not removed already ?" Because they are located in British museums or German gardens where the enjoy Freedom of Panoram. Teofilo (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- See also Jastrow's references to French court cases in Commons:Deletion requests/File:StarckJuicer.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, about the FOP: if the original picture used to make this drawing is taken in an Irish museum, It enjoys the Freedom of Panorama, right ? Secondly, about mass production objects VS pieces of art, Eileen Gray always believed she was not designing pieces of art (eventually, she thought it was absurd that one of her early furniture (cratfy art deco) was sold 100 000 F (fr) at an auction. So what about her later industrial work (as the non-conformiste chair ??!!) I don't think she was designing "mass production products by Eileen Gray" of art but just "Everyday objects". Cyril5555 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- See also Jastrow's references to French court cases in Commons:Deletion requests/File:StarckJuicer.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are two concerns about FOP. First, you can use FOP only when you distribute the picture in a FOP country. If the picture is distributed in a non-FOP country, legal problems may arise in that country. The second concern is COM:FOP#Further derivative works. I am not an Irish lawyer, but perhaps using a photograph to make a faithful drawing is still part of the action of "making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it" mentioned in the Irish law. But it would make things more simple if you could go to the museum yourself instead of relying on somebody elses' photograph (because that photographer could also claim copyright infringement of his photograph in case he considers his choice of angle creative enough to enjoy copyright protection). Teofilo (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Eileen Gray always believed --> Perhaps she believed a lot of nice things. The question is : what are her children or whoever manages her copyrights after her death believing ? And I am not sure we should base our decisions on Commons on non-binding copyright holder's statements, however nice these statements might sound. Teofilo (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep (unless this would be a tracing of the designer's own drawing). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, this is not related to any Gray's drawing. This is a drawing based on different contemporary picts of the chair Cyril5555 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The drawing is related to her chair, so it is a derivative work of her chair. Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Photo of industrial product or it's painting are not copyrighted even if he has separable aspects that can be identified. Justass (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Eileen Gray is dead in 1976. Copyright violation. 86.217.66.72 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is the source country of this chair? It seems that she has lived in Ireland (part of UK at that time), England and France. I don't know if Irish independence affects the source country of a work of if it is still British, but Irish law seems to be similar to British law, so the threshold of originality is likely similar.
- Star Wars helmets are below the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom because they are purely utilitarian[6] and this chair looks less complex than a Star Wars helmet and also looks utilitarian, so I'd assume that the chair is below the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom and thus in the public domain there. The same situation likely also applies to the Republic of Ireland.
- A nail clipper was found to be protected by copyright in France because it is so artistic (see COM:TOO#France). This chair looks even more artistic than a nail clipper, so I'd assume that this is above the threshold of originality in France.
- Thus, Keep if the chair was first "published" in the United Kingdom or Ireland, and Delete if it was first published in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Justass. Yann (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per COM:FOP#Greece. This is a modern statue erected in 2004 according to http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazlowoodbine/3975863828/ Teofilo (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Are we sure this is the same statue? I am not an expert on Greek FOP, so I am not going to argue against legal interpretation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are we sure this is the same statue? Both are located in Lindos. Both represent Kleoboulos (one can read the name on the pedestal, although it is in written in greek alphabet). The positions of the hands are similar. Teofilo (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- An obvious keep. The statue might have been erected in 2004 at the above location, but the actual bronze cast is ancient. The freedom of panorama still applies nevertheless, since the copyright ends in Grece 70 years after the author's death. --Poeticbent talk 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it were ancient, it would be kept inside a museum, not left outside under the rain. Teofilo (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- What if it is a reproduction? Those cannot be copyrighted, since the original is in public domain, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it is a reproduction, the original must be quite famous. But when you google "Statue of Kleoboulos" you find no occurence of that. Teofilo (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; reproductions don't have to be of famous things - the artist might have picked a relatively unknown statue (btw, can you google in greek? :) I cannot.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it is a reproduction, the original must be quite famous. But when you google "Statue of Kleoboulos" you find no occurence of that. Teofilo (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- What if it is a reproduction? Those cannot be copyrighted, since the original is in public domain, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, unless can be proven the image is indeed (a copy of an) ancient. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
