Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/25

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive January 25th, 2010
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wikipedia should be free of advertising ferbr1 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Freely licensed, in scope. -Nard the Bard 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. Belgrano (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A little context of this: this is a topic which is under current discussion at wikipedia in Spanish, and a week ago a voting was closed, denying the idea introduced by an admin that things such as this image in a userpage may be considered spam. That discussion can't be continued here, Commons does not have the authority to either enforce or fix such results. If they decide that an image like this one is unacceptable at user pages, remove it from user pages locally. If they decide that they are acceptable, we won't employ deletion in order to "fix" a "wrong" consensus. Despite being "common" to all projects, it's not up to Commons to make "common policy" at topics where projects have or may have different standards. If at least 1 page in 1 project uses this file and it isn't considered locally to be a violation of policy, then it is within scope and only copyright concerns may decide it's deletion. Belgrano (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is not "the context"; this is your opinion... This image is an advertising of Firefox. There can be no advertising, in Wikipedia. End of history. Thanks. ferbr1 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so? This image is not an illustration of an ad, this image is an ad in itself. ferbr1 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept, we do not determine or implement the consensus of another project. According to our policies and guidelines, the image is not a copyright violation and it is within project scope, therefore it should be kept. I have closed the request early to prevent further drama. Blurpeace 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The stated source does not prove that this image appeares on "archieves.gov". The Commons Licencing policy demands for a better and valid source 132.199.35.210 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, it does![reply]

The deletion request has to be refused, because the IP is just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism. His statement is nothing word because he's only thinking about - contents no proof for nothing --Erwin Lindemann 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the duty of the uploader to provide adequate proof of the image's license status. So instead of personal attacks against the nominator, why don't you just give us a link to the specific page on archieves.gov where this image can be found? If you don't do that, then there will be no other choice than to delete it. --Latebird (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I hope this makes you happy, Mister (by the way - shit on the photo - oder falls Du das besser verstehst - scheiß drauf) --Erwin Lindemann 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Deleted by Túrelio: request by uploader because has no source

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope, nearly a (bad) joke (see description) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Dferg: duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diversos_tipos_de_normas.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope - bad joke, second nonsense-file of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. — Dferg (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" (in English: "War archieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the author is unknown, nobody knows when he died. But the photo was made in 1899 so it is older then 100 years and sowith under „public domain“. For this reason the deletion request should be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism --Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Kept. The public domain status, was reviewed on 29 June 2009 by Rlevse. --High Contrast (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

In the description it states it a fair use image scaned from newspaper, no information about the actual photographer, so how can it be free? Egmontaz talk 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" (in English: "War archieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  KeepBecause the author is unknown and nowhere to find (I asked some people around but unsuccessfull) nobody knows when he died. But the photo was made in 1908 so it is older then 100 years and sowith under „public domain“. The deletion request has to be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism.--Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - more than 100 years old - Deletion request of an IP, can be vandalism Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment just because it's more than 100 years old, doesn't mean that it's in the public domain in a life+70 country. For example, the works of H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw are all under copyright, despite Cashel Byron's Profession being published 127 years ago. I'll leave it to someone else to figure out the anonymity issue, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and what does that means in this special case??? The photos wasn't make by H. G. Wells or George Bernard Shaw but by an unknown photographer it seems to be, that it makes an diffrent --Erwin Lindemann 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't know what that means in this case, how can you argue that this photo is in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no comment! --Erwin Lindemann 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "altes Photo" (in English: "old photo") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  KeepBecause the author is unknown, nobody knows when he died so far. The photo was made in 1910 and is under {Anonymous-EU} . For this reason the deletion request should be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism --Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no evidence given that the photographer of this photo is dead for 70 years. Without any evidence this is pure speculation - that does not work on Commons since this is a reliable media host 80.187.111.186 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I see there was a discussion about it some time ago but the problem was not solved there: if the author is unknown, there needs to be more information given that the uploader's statement which is: "unknown". Just because the uploader does not know who took it does not mean that the photographer is really unknown. Additional research about this issue has to be done. --80.187.111.186 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the photo is over 100 years old and the photographer is unknown - no reason for deletion (The photo is to find in: Die Moderne Illustrierte Zeitung Wien 15. Mai 1914 - page 109 The description is: “Freitragendes Montieren einer Eisenbahnkriegsbrücke gelegentlich der Brückenbauübung bei Neustadt a.d.Mettau 1910” The photographer is not to find out because all iformations given is a small insignia P&C° in the left lower corner. -- Steinbeisser (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - as last time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted The fact that we do not know the name of the photographer does not make it "Anonymous" -- that status requires that it was originally published anonymously. The cite above may or may not have been the original publication. 1910 is far too late for us to assume that the photographer died before 1942 -- if he was born in 1890 he could easily have lived until 1972 or even later. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" (in English: "War archieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Because the author is unknown and nowhere to find (I asked some people around but unsuccessfull) nobody knows when he died. But the photo was made in 1908 so it is older then 100 years and sowith under „public domain“. The deletion request has to be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism.--Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "altes Photo" (in English: "old photo") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  KeepBecause the author is unknown, nobody knows when he died. But the photo was made in 1910 so it is older then 100 years and sowith under „public domain“. For this reason the deletion request should be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism --Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A valid source as Commons demands for is missing: "www.wapedia.mobil" is not the place where this image can be found. The author and the uploader are not the same, so it is not clear if the uplaoder can release this image in the public domain 132.199.35.210 10:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the author had released the photo in the public domain as it's decleared - so far the deletion request has to be refused for nonsens --Erwin Lindemann 14:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
But license should probably be {{PD-heirs}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done --Erwin Lindemann 11:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Essential source information is missing. The source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" does not verify a public domain licence that bases on the death of the photographer that is unknown, too. 132.199.35.210 10:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  KeepThe author is unknown, so no author information can be stated and nobody knows if an when he died - except the Lord - but I'm unable to ask him right now! For this reason and the age of the photo it is under Anonymous-EU status. Sowith the deletion request has to be refused by proofed nonsens! --Erwin Lindemann 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "altes Photo" (in English: "old photo") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  KeepThe author is unknown, so no author information can be stated and nobody knows if an when he died - except the Lord - but I'm unable to ask him right now! For this reason and the age of the photo it is under Anonymous-EU status. Sowith the deletion request has to be refused by proofed nonsens! --Erwin Lindemann 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "altes Photo" (in English: "old photo") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The photo was made in 1909, the author is unknown - what do you want?

The deletion request has to be refused, because the IP ist just not installed for productive work but only for vandalism.--Erwin Lindemann 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "altes Photo im Kriegsarchiv" (in English: "old photo in the Wararchieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  KeepThe author is really unknown, so no author information can be stated and nobody knows if an when he died - except the Lord - but I'm unable to ask him right now! For this reason and the age of the photo it is under {{Anonymous-EU}} status. Sowith the deletion request has to be refused by proofed nonsens! --Erwin Lindemann 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I doubt that this is an anonymous work. I assume this PD-anon thing is a good will thinking of the uploader who assumes for himself that there is no author known. But there is a need for some neutral evidence that can proof that the photographer is not known. 178.2.50.58 18:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. No consensus for deletion. INeverCry 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal photo. --Superzerocool (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal image that is out of project scope. Blurpeace 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader username is "Crystal Phuong". We should probably try for OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 07:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment in the english WP the userpage of Crystal phuong was speedely deleted, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#userpage_for_selfpromotion.3F Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - self-advertisement Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as copyvio, no reaction by uploader --:bdk: 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder; see watermark in bottom right corner. FASTILY (TALK) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader username is "Crystal Phuong". We should probably try for OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 07:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio, no reaction by uploader :bdk: 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image reads "Afghanland.com" - so presumably not "own work". -- Deadstar (msg) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: http://www.afghanland.com/history/ahmadshah.html

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Was copied from enwp where it is tagged with en:template:PD-Italy, but that doesn't exist here and Template talk:PD-Italy suggests that this isn't necessarily "Commons PD". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Italy isn't accepted on Commons; see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. I don't know what the copyright status of this image is. Pruneautalk 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PD-Italy is depreceated, unknown copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal picture - nice people, but out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Also deleting File:Fotos-0034.jpg for the same reason. Wknight94 talk 18:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for buildings only in Finland, statue unveiled in 1982 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Sculptor fi:Pentti Papinaho died on 1992. --JuTa 20:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for buildings only in Finland, sculpor Jussi Mäkinen died in 1978 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Wäinö Aaltonen died in 1966 son not PD yet. A333 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know very well. I have asked deletion two times in September 2007. Roquai (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Higher quality heptagrams available (e.g. File:Acute heptagram (blue).svg). Uploader has privacy concerns as they inserted their real name into the log. Blurpeace 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems harmless to lose this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work of a copyrighted design by the illustrators of Full Metal Alchemist. The work is too original to be considered ineligible. Blurpeace 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-( I suppose we should draw a simpler circe, without simbols (or with our-fantasy simbols), to illustrate FMA-related articles... --Gig (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that we have to lose high quality illustrations like this one, but we have a duty to abide by and respect international law. Blurpeace 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, don't know who's the author or when the statue was unveiled but since the subject, Viljami Kalliokoski died in 1978 i presume it is not PD yet. A333 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor, Oskari Jauhiainen, died in 1990 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

why PD-AR-Photo ??? Avron (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, monument unveiled in 1996 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Finnish Copyright Law one may take photographs of atrworks (such as statues) and place them on display as long as (i) the artwork in question is on display in public, (ii) the photograph is not used for commercial purposes. BKfi (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But files on Commons must be free to use for commercial purposes too. A333 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, as a World War II memorial not PD yet. A333 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, as a World War II monument not PD yet. A333 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Eino Räsänen died in 1970 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused and without description - looks like a copy violation, aerial photo Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Webscraped image. Higher res versions can be seen all over the internet. created by a serial copyright violater (now indef blocked for this) on enwiki Peripitus (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like a professional photo from an agency. No info/source on page. Hekerui (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work of a copyrighted painting A333 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Finnish copyright law (Tekijänoikeuslaki, 25 a § Taideteoksen käyttäminen luettelossa ja tiedotuksessa sekä rakennuksen kuvaaminen) "Taideteoksen kuvaaminen on sallittua muissakin kuin 1 tai 2 momentissa tarkoitetuissa tapauksissa, jos teos on pysyvästi sijoitettu julkiselle paikalle tai sen välittömään läheisyyteen. Jos taideteos on kuvan pääaihe, kuvaa ei saa käyttää ansiotarkoituksessa." In english "Photographing a work of art is allowed in other uses than as specified in moments 1 and 2 if the piece [of art] is permanently placed in a public space or adjacent to a public space. If the work of art is the main subject in the photograph, the photograph may not be used for the purpose of earning profit" (my translation, as I could not find an official english translation). Now as the painting in question was photographed at Merikeskus Vellamo, a public space, to my understanding this clause (or whatever is the correct legal term) allows this photograph to be displayed in Wikipedia and the related projects as Wiki is a non-profit project. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this can be displayed in certain Wikipedias that allow non-free content but material in Commons must be free to use for any purpose. A333 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, statue made in the 1950s so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryhtipoika.jpg: FOP in Finland for buildings only, statue made in the 1950s so not PD yet.


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for building only in Finland, statue made in the 1990s so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vallis Gratiae 550.jpg: FOP for building only in Finland, statue made in the 1990s so not PD yet.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculpture unveiled in the 1970s so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Coyau (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculpture unveiled in 1987 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Coyau (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" (in English: "War archieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  KeepThe author is unknown, so no author information can be stated and nobody knows if an when he died - except the Lord - but I'm unable to ask him right now! For this reason and the age of the photo it is under {{Anonymous-EU}} status. Sowith the deletion request has to be refused by proofed nonsens! --Erwin Lindemann 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept Anonymous author of a picture taken more than 70 years ago. --Alpertron (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reasons for deletion request. Sorry. This file work in my computer, but don't in Commons. Look picture. -Aku506 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted A.J. (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Since being uploaded on 12 January by Mehlauge, the source, authorship, permission and licensing information has been changed completely and in some cases blanked out by 90.187.5.20, StefanKutsche and 84.179.95.81. Apparently someone or some people feel the information is not correct, and the removal of the license tag may indicate that they do not agree that hosting the file here is in order. I'm inviting the involved parties to discuss the issues here, rather than continuing to express their views through some obscure edit war. LX (talk, contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept, see no valid reason for deletion (no discussion and edit war). Kameraad Pjotr 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

In this screenshot above "Dagelijks leven" File:P_dl.60px.png is used, which is has been delete by Warddr during Session 20090221: for being non-free; See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:P dl.png Krinkle (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, DW of a unfree image. Kameraad Pjotr 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

en:Liveswif is freeware but does not come with an open source license compatible with Commons. -Nard the Bard 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, unfree screenshot, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Canadian Forces government seal. Probably protected by crown copyright. Blurpeace 07:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, unable to determine copyright status as no date of first publication is given. Kameraad Pjotr 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copied from http://www.catoledorocha.pb.gov.br/plugins/p17_image_gallery/images/110.jpg (image accessed from http://www.catoledorocha.pb.gov.br/index.php?categoryid=3&p17_sectionid=15 ), where it's not licensed as public domain. Ednei amaral (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, clear copyright violation and no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Version of http://www.catoledorocha.pb.gov.br/plugins/p17_image_gallery/images/83.jpg (imkage available from http://www.catoledorocha.pb.gov.br/index.php?categoryid=3&p17_sectionid=15, where it's not licensed as public domain.) Ednei amaral (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, clear copyright violation and no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No author information stated. So there is no proof for its copyright being expired because we do not know when the author died: the licence tag tells us "life of the author plus 70 years" and the source "Kriegsarchiv Wien" (in English: "War archieves in Vienna") gives no clearance, too. 132.199.35.210 10:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  KeepThe author is really unknown, so no author information can be stated and nobody knows if an when he died - except the Lord - but I'm unable to ask him right now! For this reason and the age of the photo it is under Anonymous-EU status. Sowith the deletion request has to be refused by proofed nonsens! --Erwin Lindemann 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question was the Kriegsarchiv asked? The Kriegsarchiv is part of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. That source must be tracked, they likely own the original negatives, if they say unknown then it is unknown. --Martin H. (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Anonymous-EU seems likely looking from the description page. Kameraad Pjotr 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A valid source is missing. Furthermore it is hard to believe that the US Army took that image in Cold War times. If a better source is to be stated, this image can be kept, but with this poor sourcing it is impossible. 132.199.35.210 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Massa for your decision that the image can kept - once again thank you Mylord -- Erwin Lindemann 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

deleting of the file is possible, because a much better image meanwhile is available as File:COV IMR.jpg --Erwin Lindemann 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, no evidence for PD-USGov, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation of writing art(sculpture). --KENPEI (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist:
日本語: 黒田アキ
(Aki Kuroda,1944-)
Place:Japan
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP in Japan for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like a photograph of someone elses work Snowmanradio (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo of a sign in a Florida state park. As such, I assumed it would be PD. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's every reason to assume that official signs in Florida state parks are works of the Florida state government, and the Florida constitution mandates that works of the state government are public domain. Not sure that the licenses on the image are valid: it's a faithful reproduction of a 2-D public domain work, so perhaps this should be PD-art. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no such mandate in the Florida state constitution. What exactly are you talking about? --Latebird (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP in the US for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

According to the description, this scanned page is from "The Magic Arts in Celtic Britain" by Lewis Spence. Published 1945, Rider & Company, Anchor Press, Tiptree, Essex, England. This is not "{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}". -- Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, clear copyright violation & bogus licensing. Kameraad Pjotr 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photograph reads "Jorn Lier Horst Foto av Christian Elgvin" who has a webpage at http://www.elgvin.no. Unlikely this portrait can be licensed as it is. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Eduardo Chillida died in 2002 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, no FOP in Finland for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for buildings only in Finland, sculptor Emil Wikström died in 1942 so not PD yet. De minimis might apply but the name and description are about the statue. A333 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I think, that de minimis applies here. The image can be renamed and the description changed. --Apalsola tc 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A picture can hardly cause an infringement of copyright depending on a description attached to it. Otherwise, I have no opinion on this. --ThePeter (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I just used the name and description to point out that the statue was probably the main subject of the photo. A333 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to category Category:Undelete in 2013. --Apalsola tc 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC) -- (noinclude added) Apalsola tc 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. I think Finnish copyright law allows using this image here whatever the name or description is. I checked section 25a and among other things it states that "Pictures can be taken from works of art permanently located in public places or near them. If the work of art is the main subject in the picture, picture may not be used commercially." (Translation by me, not official.). Section 25a is the same section where the law says that pictures of buildings can taken be freely. --Ufo (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please note, that Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses states: "All copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose." Commercial use of the work must be allowed. --Apalsola tc 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, inclusion of the statue is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Converted from speedy deletion request. Original rationale was, "fair use". Too original to be assessed as {{PD-textlogo}}. Blurpeace 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, too complicated for PD-textlogo or the like; copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for buildings only in Finland. Haven't found on the internet when the sculptor, Evert Aarnio, died but since the statue was unveiled in 1920 it's likely that he died less than 70 years ago. A333 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Probably Aarnio died more than 70 years ago; otherwise more work would have been known. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no evidence sculptor died before 1939. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP for building only in Finland, monument unveiled in 2009 so not PD yet. Might be ineligible for copyright though. A333 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. I am not sure but this one might not be eligible for copyright (as a work of art). --Apalsola tc 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Hello, I'm the original uploader. I don't understand what's wrong here. There is FOP (freedom of panorama), which means that it's OK to take a photo of a public statue/building. Right? --User:doyrel
 Comment In Finland, Freedom of panorama applies for buildings only, not statues. (See COM:FOP#Finland.) You can also take a photograph of a public statue but you can not use that photograph for any (e.g. commercial) purposes and thus it can not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, neither. (See Commons:Licensing.) --Apalsola tc 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. OK, that's new information for me. Personally I know the designers of the statue, and they have no objection for the photo, but it's a bit difficult to prove that here in the net :) Of course, if there's no way of showing that the image is allowed by the statue's designers, then it probably will be deleted. --doyrel
There is a way to show that. See Commons:OTRS for more information. --Apalsola tc 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep at least for now. (See the preceding comments.) --Apalsola tc 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Good. I will contact the statue designers and ask the OTRS agreement. --doyrel
 Comment. Question... The OTRS help page says that one of the licenses (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses) must be selected. All of them seem to pertain to cases where the uploaded _image itself_ is the work under license. However, now we're talking about a case where the _item in the image_ is the copyrighted work. The copyright holders simply want to state that publishing of a picture of the work is OK, but they are not giving away the rights of the statue-design itself (obviously). Can you recommend a specific OTRS email template / correct words for this purpose? --doyrel
As far as I know, it is sufficient if the designer of the statue agrees that the image (of his statue) is published under a certain free license. So he or she doesn't have to license the statue-design itself. See also Commons:Derivative works. --Apalsola tc 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Hello. The statue's designer says he has sent the OTRS mail. When will the file-deletion be canceled? --doyrel
 Comment. I mean, the status is "Keep" (see above), but the file deletion request has not been closed yet! Who could close it? --doyrel
 Comment. Hello. As far as I know, also the photographer has sent the OTRS email now. Has this been noticed, and when will the deletion be canceled? --doyrel
  •  Comment - closed the OTRS ticket related to this. Deferring to another administrator to evaluate the whole thing, in its entirety. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, OTRS-permission received; permission from the creator of the statue is similar to FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work of Antero Kassinen, memorial created by him [2]. Published in 2009. No freedom of panorama for 3D-artwork in Finland, not in PD yet. Ticket is about the photograph, not the memorial. Permission was granted by photographer and it is clearly about the photo, not the memorial. Htm (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the above discussion correctly, there is another ticket (OTRS:4456633) that should be about the statue. If so, that ticket should be also added to the file page. -Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Yes there is. Added it. So I withdraw my request. Thank you, Antti T.! --Htm (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my deletion request. There is another ticket about the statue, added it to filepage. Sorry about false alarm. --


Kept: withdrawn. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Ukraine, seems to be modern statue so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the Ukrainian Copyright law but in general regulation prohibits the use of such copies for commercial purposes. In this case (i) the image pictures the public environment in a specific town not merely the statue and (ii) the photograph is not used for commercial purposes. For the reasons stated I can't see any violation of the copyright law. BKfi (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation of copyright but files on Commons must be free to use for commercial purposes, too. A333 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP and no permission from the copyright holder. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A valid source is missing. Furthermore it is hard to believe that the US Army took that image in Cold War times. If a better source is to be stated, this image can be kept, but with this poor sourcing it is impossible. 132.199.35.210 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shit on the photo - by the way, what do you think what even the US Army did anymore in cold war times --Erwin Lindemann 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Erwin, while I agree with you on keeping most of these images the anon has nominated for deletion, this one seems very weakly sourced. Where did you get the image? - Jmabel ! talk 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
„Tanks of the World“ by v.Senger u. Etterlin (London 1984) at that time no better photos of the eastern coutries armed forces wasn't available --Erwin Lindemann 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Keepas long as no better image is available, this one should be kept, because better a poor image than no image - so far --Erwin Lindemann 11:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Delete The image is good enough to be kept, but it has a very poor sourcing and that's the problem. Because only stating "US Army" as source is not sufficient. More source information must be given by the uploader so that it is traceable that the copyright holder of this image is really the US Army. --High Contrast (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was certanly not made by the US Army itself, but by a memeber of the US Army and sowith the photo is under public domain - ist das denn so schwer? --Erwin Lindemann 10:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You must prove that this photograph was taken by a memeber of the US Army. "US Army" is not sufficient, that proves nothing. --High Contrast (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepOkay, I'll send a message to the pentagon for to find out the source of the photo - until the answer comes, the deletion request should be in progress - I'll inform you about the result as soon as possible -- Erwin Lindemann 15:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, an advance. It's up to you to help. Where did YOU have this image from? That would help, too, in the beginning. --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no source and no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images Helsinki turtle parking

[edit]

FOP in Finland for buildings only. --A333 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so... One can still say, though, that it's really a photo of the entire square/ parking lot, with buildings, boats, cars, and a few turtles too, rather than just a photo of a statue... Vmenkov (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does rather emphasize the turtles, though. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP in Finland for sculptures, not de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 18:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of Ilkan patsas

[edit]

FOP for buildings only in Finland, author Matti Visanti died in 1957 so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Looks like a building to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a building, but it is not really. There is this gate on all for sides and inside it is just a vault covered with reliefs or something like that. It is a memorial for Jaakko Ilkka. The translation for Ilkan patsas is something like Ilka's statue, so it even has the word 'statue' in its title. For some reason I have 1936 as death date in my notes but seeing A333's link now, that obviously was a reading error by me. The images should be deleted  Delete. -- Cecil (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]