Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
There is no such named church in Como, the category used to contain photos now in Category:San Miro (Canzo), which is where the church is. --Cruccone (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Empty category = speedy delete. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Empty category
This image was created by en:User:JBTown, however it was created from and displays a protected, copyrighted design from the architect. A similiar file was just deleted here at Commons. User:JBTown was attempting, in good faith, to create a free version of a copyrighted image, but ended up simply recreating a copyrighted work. Consensus from various discussions at the English Wikipedia and here at Commons seems to be that Wikimedia is put more at a legal risk when an image is recreated from a copyrighted design and then re-published by another author as their own work (which it is not). DR04 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Info Also, some may note that this is modeled after an earlier design (not current) from the architect, Santiago Calatrava. The fact that this design will most definitely not be used means a free alternative will never be available (we will never be able to take a picture of the building). An additional reason this image needs to be deleted. DR04 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per same arguments advanced in the above-linked discussion with nearly the same circumstances. I would say that we should use a fair-use version of the original work for critical commentary in the article - but this is an en.wiki matter. Disclosure: I was pointed here by the nominator on my en.wiki talk page. –xenotalk 19:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it is not possible to produce this kind of artwork without potentially breaching the copyright of the creator. This being the case, it is preferable to use the original non-free version with a suitable FUR if this is required for the purposes of the encyclopaediaElen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Disclosure: I was pointed here by the nominator on my en.wiki talk page.
- Delete Derivative work of the architectural design - good fair use candidate for En. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Consistantly with the others. I also deleted File:Nakheel tower.svg. Yes, without discussion. Rama (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The Source http://www.fva-bw.de/indexjs.html?http://www.fva-bw.de/presse/foto_detail.php?imgsrc=prm_fva_50_1&verz=prm&kuerz=jpg claiming something different than CC.
Without OTRS-Ticket this Image is not CC-by-sa. --Jutta234 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The picture can be deleted. I will take a picture with my own camera. --Indifoerster (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- This picture File:FVA Hauptgebaeude Wonnhalde Freiburg.jpg I took this morning. It recplaces the previous image.
Deleted. Lupo 12:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be low res web screenshot, likely not free, no source given, no permission confirmed. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete given the super tiny resolution, its hard to accept this is 'own work.' --Leoboudv (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete compare en:File:Gotthilfhempel2.jpg where original uploader blanked the image and requested deletion. /194.47.95.146 09:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It's a crop of en:File:Hempelkils.jpg, where the uploader on June 30, 2005 also said "no copyright, please delete", which seems plausible given that the uploader himself is visible in the image (and therefore some third party must have taken that photo). But it's a photo all right. Lupo 11:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (disputatio) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- 720px at the longer side... I suspect its from facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Photo was supposedly taken from http://www.cinemaexpress.com Razimantv (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --:bdk: 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Very low resolution. Own work very doubtful Razimantv (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. obvious copyvio --:bdk: 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Real origin : see here 86.192.184.198 10:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. obvious copyvio --:bdk: 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
unclear who original author was or what permission was supposed to be. Source listed as "Search Engine" and author as "Photographer". Similar photos previous uploaded and removed. SimonLyall (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete of course - unclear source says everything. pjahr @ 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. "source=search engine", obvious copyvio --:bdk: 18:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The altar and fresc is definitely PD, however photography of the church interior doesn't have to be. I don't know russian to well to validate source, but I don't see any copyleft on the given webpage. Masur (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The date of the photo is not 1880. No evidence for permission by the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
While http://www.cipoo.net/fileinfo_e.html does say the songs that are being sung are public domain, but does not say if the actual recordings are in the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep But they say that the files are free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep These are clearly released into the public domain. -Nard the Bard 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am reading "To the best of our knowledge, all the files published on this site are only relevant to public domain music; otherwise we have obtained proper authorization from the owner to publish them. For MIDI and MP3 files we want to point out that they are not intended to (and neither can) replace high quality recordings. Please note that is not our intention to violate any copyrights therefore, should you discover that any file in this site relates to copyrighted or unauthorized material, please inform us and we'll remove it at once." and it doesn't say, to me, that the actual files are public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- A CYA disclaimer does not change the fact that this particular music is public domain, and they recorded it themselves. Their disclaimer about third party copyrights obviously does not apply to works created by them; that is an absurd reading of the entire licensing statement. -Nard the Bard 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I received OTRS permission for these files. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
All images in Category:Aksar and Hojannes
[edit]Every image in Category:Aksar and Hojannes was uploaded by the same user, and they all appear to be video stills found in various places on the web. Very doubtful copyright. --Wknight94 talk 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Nom. Is this a notable comedy duo or something? Otherwise also out of scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The photographer is Max Kettel (1902-1961) from Switzerland, so this is a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not PD from photographer; no indication of first publication in India, garbage description and attribution. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
as per previous DR. Yann (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. See above. Yann (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Public domain in the USA due to date of publication, but Commons:Licensing#Netherlands says 70 years pma and Mondriaan died in 1944 (==2015). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As nominated; also, painted in 1909 does not prove "published before 1923". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. "Possibly" public domain ...." Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This painting is in public domain in the USA, but not in its country of origin. Here it says "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons." Looks like someone did anyway. Ephemeronium (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My Spanish is bad, but I read the description as claiming that this is Mondriaan's "Stilleven met gemberpot II" and not an 'homage'. If so, it isn't in the public domain in the Netherlands. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, this is indeed an original work by Mondrian. As much as I hate to see it go, it won't be public domain until 2014. (ditto my other comment) Ephemeronium (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My Spanish is bad, but I read the description as claiming that this is the first version of Mondriaan's "Stilleven met gemberpot" and not an 'homage'. If so, it isn't in the public domain in the Netherlands. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, this is indeed an original work by Mondrian. As much as I hate to see it go, it won't be public domain until 2014. Ephemeronium (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hundertwasserbahnhof Uelzen
[edit]- File:BAHNHOF UELZEN 001.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 10 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 11 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 12 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 13 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 14 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 15 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 16 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 17 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 18 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uelzen - Hundertwasserbahnhof 19 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete English: It's a shame, but its the law - delete per reasons stated by User:The Evil IP address.Deutsch: Schade. Aber die sind die Richtlinien. Löschen Sie es aus den Gründen User:The Evil IP address erklärte.DR04 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP indoors in Germany. Not even on railway platforms. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of any special restrictions regarding Hundertwasser buildings. The sentences "The contents of this site are for personal and / or educational use only. Neither text nor photographs may be reproduced in any form without the permission of The Hundertwasser Non-Profit Foundation." are not at all applicable here as I neither reproduced text nor photographs of the site but took my own photographs. However, if you worry that my photos might cause trouble I agree in their delition. Btw, the statement "No FOP indoors in Germany." is greatly misleading as one doesn't need FOP for each and any photo. -- Ies (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Based on wrong data. If not deleted i would like to see my full name deleted from the history. -ARTeFACT (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, not used. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation from http://www.africansuccess.org/visuFiche.php?id=792&lang=en Martin H. (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement. Was at http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/05/03/interesting-facts-and-figures-amrita-arora-2273/ before upload to commons Razimantv (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete (after some additional reaction time for notified uploader) I added the missing deletion warning at the page of the uploader User talk:Rajpartner. The user uploaded only this one picture. The missing license and the professional style of the picture are a strong indicator for copyvio. Suggest to give the uploader some potential time to react on the added warning. --Neozoon (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private picture. –Tryphon☂ 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Claim of copyright dubious: Image is a crop from http://people.famouswhy.com/carole_mallory/carole_mallory_image_1.jpg Whpq (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it's a copyright violation: this photo comes from Alborosie's myspace page, honestly I don't think it's in the public domain as claimed. If user Aaandrea is really the author, why did he take the picture from the web instead of his camera? --87.3.91.171 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photograph A333 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep That is not a valid reason to delete an image. Drawings are also in scope of commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- But the template used, {{PD-Finland50}}, applies only to photographs so this image is probably not PD. Sorry the initial description was not clear enough. A333 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Yes, this uses a strange licensing template. If the image description was better, we could probably find out, but like this, the image is barely usable anyway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Essential source information is missing, if that public domain licence from finnland does not fit. --High Contrast (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no source Polarlys (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
this is a photo by Belami Studio. In case it is them who are uploading and donating images, a ticket with permission is requested. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a photograph A333 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Licence does not Fit to the one in de:Datei:Drahtwarenfabrik Drahtzug.jpg. Uploader != Author; GFDL-License has not been confirmed by OTRS-Ticket Jutta234 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- What about changing the license to {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}}? --Leyo 08:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK I changed the license now and withdraw my deletion request. --Jutta234 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Redundant / low quality. Here's a much better quality image File:Raven banner (Bayeux Tapestry).jpg. They are both photos of the Bayeux Tapestry, so there's no need to keep the low quality pic.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Canadian National Research Council policy linked on file page does not permit commercial reuse. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment This is easy enough to calculate, and can then be replotted in an SVG figure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no, this is not easy to calculate. One would have to write a computer program using subroutines from an appropriate source, such as NOVAS. It would be unwise to trust a Wikimedia contributor to write such a program correctly; it would have to be published in a reliable source before it would be useful. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- At this resolution, one can only see the effect of the years 400, 800, 1200, 1600 etcetera not being leap years, superimposed on the quadratic Julian curve. In addition, the calculation just requires parameters for the quadratic curve for the accumulated delay of the Julian date. With vector graphics, one can exploit the resolution for each leap year. I will see what I can do when I am in the mood. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no, this is not easy to calculate. One would have to write a computer program using subroutines from an appropriate source, such as NOVAS. It would be unwise to trust a Wikimedia contributor to write such a program correctly; it would have to be published in a reliable source before it would be useful. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. @Pieter: Have you been in the mood? ;-) Polarlys (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The author claims copyright. This is not ineligible. Not even Malevich's File:Black Square.jpg is ineligible for copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Sure it is. The entire 5 lithograph work is copyrightable but this is not. -Nard the Bard 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, how is it not {{PD-shape}}? It's just four green rectangles. The fact that the author claims copyright is not really an indication of anything. –Tryphon☂ 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, make an svg-file with four rectangles. But this is a file taken from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, a photo of this artist's work. Even if one made one's own photo, it would still be a derivative of Buren's folded lithographs. If this would be taken to court, the judge would listen to art experts, who would say that this is an original artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
sorry, artwork by a wellknown painter, Pieter is right Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It can't be PD! The uploader himself tells us that he copied it from the MoMa website (what an idea!). Eryakaas (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep {{Pd-ineligible}}, "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
PD ineligible -FASTILY 06:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not specified how old these wooden dolls are, but they do not seem ancient to my untrained eye. There are many more images from the same exhibition in category:Kokeshi, as well as some others:
- File:Kokeshi 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SakunamiEki2005-10b.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Miyagi doll.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kokeshi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kokeshi in Miyagi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kokeshi dolls kurashiki.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (in "ancient toy museum -PD?)
Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are probably mid-20th century (at least the ones I photographed at Seattle's Nihon Go Gakko). I'm not familiar with the details of Japanese copyright law. Certainly, equivalent objects from the same period (pre-1978) in the U.S. would be public domain, since the makers of these made no explicit claim of copyright. (I'm assuming that your unstated issue is about copyright, since objects can be well within the scope of Commons without being ancient.) - Jmabel ! talk 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Seattle exhibition will be open till April, so there is time to make enquiries about the age and provanance of these works. According to COM:L#Japan, the term for anonymous work is 50 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The provenance is relatively simple, but not that informative in terms of copyrights: they were souvenirs collected by a number of Seattle people (mostly Japanese and Japanese-Americans) on visits to Japan, mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, though a few more recently. I'm sure that many of them are over 50 years old and many are not. I doubt any one individual could clear this up (since at least a few dozen collectors were involved). If we want to be on the safe side, we would need to delete these. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- But should not it be possible to identify some that are certainly old enough? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly. It's not a space that is routinely open to the general public, and it would be quite a coincidence if any of the photos I already took had no item that was a problem. (As noted below, one or two are probably de minimis.) Not a topic I care all that much about; I just took these opportunistically when I was photographing an event at the space. I'm not going to go through a lot to preserve these on Commons; I've placed them as a set on Flickr, which is looser about this sort of issue, so they'll still be out there in the world. I'm sure we will still be left with a few of someone's unproblematic images. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- But should not it be possible to identify some that are certainly old enough? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would also add that at least one of the photos I took - File:Kokeshi exhibit at Seattle Nihon Go Gakko 04.jpg - is probably enough of a general overview of the exhibit, and any individual doll would presumably be de minimis; File:Kokeshi exhibit at Seattle Nihon Go Gakko 01.jpg would at least be close to that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The provenance is relatively simple, but not that informative in terms of copyrights: they were souvenirs collected by a number of Seattle people (mostly Japanese and Japanese-Americans) on visits to Japan, mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, though a few more recently. I'm sure that many of them are over 50 years old and many are not. I doubt any one individual could clear this up (since at least a few dozen collectors were involved). If we want to be on the safe side, we would need to delete these. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Seattle exhibition will be open till April, so there is time to make enquiries about the age and provanance of these works. According to COM:L#Japan, the term for anonymous work is 50 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for my bad English (I'm speak only portuguese): "my" file File:Kokeshi in Miyagi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) it's a derivative work to File:Kokudo48Go2005-10Sakunami.jpg, it's here - Commons. Why a problem for this use? Adjusts are necessary in description? Please, see this. Thanks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- In File:Kokudo48Go2005-10Sakunami.jpg the dolls can be regarded as de minimis. Cropping makes the art works the main subject of the new image, which would be a copyright infringement (there is no COM:FOP#Japan for statues). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, no! It's a surreal dream! :( André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violations, except File:Kokudo48Go2005-10Sakunami.jpg, which is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it a Derivative work of a copyrightable design? Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Depends on whether the coat of arms on the book is eligible for copyright and still in copyright. I'd say the layout itself is not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is it free of rights? DW for me. Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
