Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is a file from Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR, it was uploaded to Commons on 2008-03-16 and failed Flickrreview on 2009-10-27. I contacted the Flickr owner trkr asking him to change the license to either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. His response was: Hi, I wont change license type, please delete my photo from wikimedia and wikipedia, thanks. Türker YILDIRIM There are no archives of this file on the Internet archive [1], with no proof that this image was ever free it should be deleted. It is used on one page. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. We would keep this only if we had some compelling evidence that the license was different at the time of upload. Every effort has been made at this point to retain it. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Considering the image conditions and uploader's history, I doubt that it is a self made image. ■ MMXX talk 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a crop of File:Nicole Nau & Luis Pereyra.jpg, which has a watermark on the left hand side. This photo is by professional photographer Maximo Parpagnoli. The only way this could be a legit upload is if the uploader really is Nicole Nau and this was a work for hire by her, which I doubt. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I am new and I am a bit confused. I am preofessional dancer, so I pay professional fotografers to make pictures of my work and my person. The rights, as we arranged, are on my side. Means: i can use my images free. As the fotografers told me. That was the reason why I put in the licence, own work. Because it is a work of my comapany, my stuff. But I am afraid that I am wrong in this case, how to handle it here. .... How do I have to handle this cuestion? It is the first time, afer 20 years that I have problems with using this imagage of my self. The fotografer give me the permission to use my own images. What do I have to bring yoy to keep the image on? Kind regards NauNicole--NauNicole (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nicole, you haven't done anything wrong, but we're often naturally suspicious of people uploading professional photographs, since these are often copyright violations - I'll follow up with you by mail to confirm the permission for this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Taking a look at her userpage, it is probably easier to verify her user account, instead of repeating the process for every single image. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm doing that as well. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Taking a look at her userpage, it is probably easier to verify her user account, instead of repeating the process for every single image. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently in Germany copyright invariably remains with the original author - so the uploader will have to obtain a license statement directly from the original photographer, for the images she didn't take herself. I've added a no-permission tag dated a week from today to all her images to give her a bit of time to do that. I should be able to get license statements from Nicole herself for the ones she took, but obviously this isn't one (since she's in the uncropped version). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- After communicating with the author I've deleted by the uploader's request this image and most of Nicole's other images, until such time as permission from the original photographer can be obtained - so this deletion request is moot for now. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Germany copyright law, I have used Google translate to read this page, per that page copyright holder is the photographer, but I believe if the photographer was hired by her at that moment, she should be the copyright holder, I mean photographer was actually their employee at that certain time, I think it is enough if she verify her identity by sending an email to OTRS using this (nicole@tangofolklore.com) www.tangofolklore.com email address. ■ MMXX talk 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Dcoetzee: In private communications with uploader, uploader has requested most of her photos be deleted unless and until she can contact the original photographer for permission.
This image is actually listed on Flickr as "All Rights Reserved" and is therefore in violation of Wiki policies to be hosted on the servers and used in the articles. Keraunoscopia (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am retracting my deletion request. Digging a bit further, the author of the photo actually gives permission for sharing, but it is written on a different part of the site entirely (not on or near the image), so long as her site is given due credit. She writes, "If you like the work, you are free to save and share, even post on the web, but give the credit to amy-wong.com and have a link to it as well~ Please, email me or message me when you do so." This can be found on this page. – Keraunoscopia (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Such a permission wouldnt be enough, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AvrilVancouver.jpg, deleted 01/2008. However, likely following the permission request, the image on flickr was changed to cc-by and uploaded as such to Commons in 08/2008. This license was reviewed by a robot, so you can trust in it. A Creative Commons license is not revocable, thats expressed by {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. You may add it to the description. --Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is my photo and it is copyrighted! 67.55.3.66 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep it passed Flickr review. Given that we don't know who you are, and you've given no evidence to back up your claim, I don't think we can give it much credence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Image was deleted on Flickr; no metadata, no evidence that this is work by "Ricky". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unlikely that Flickr will go the way of Geocities long before Commons does; should we do a mass-deletion of Flickr images then? There's no one credible claiming that this is a copy, nor any evidence of that. Are we really going to delete a picture used on 11 Wikimedia projects because an IP makes an unsubstantiated claim of copyright?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the rest of Ricky's photostream. Look at the Avril set. Probably the IP also approached the Flickr account, and Ricky removed the copyright violation. I now tagged the image as a copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unlikely that Flickr will go the way of Geocities long before Commons does; should we do a mass-deletion of Flickr images then? There's no one credible claiming that this is a copy, nor any evidence of that. Are we really going to delete a picture used on 11 Wikimedia projects because an IP makes an unsubstantiated claim of copyright?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
As the image is heavily used on Wikimedia projects and the situation doesn't look so clear, IMHO, a formal deletion request by the rights holder/photographer to OTRS is preferable. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- It should be blatantly obvious that crossbonez/Ricky does not own the rights to the remaining images in his Avril Lavigne set. For example this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Pieter is right. This is an obvious case of a Flickr user either not understanding or deliberately ignoring copyright. Pieter's last diff shows that. The amount it is used throughout Wikimedia is completely irrelevant. Endorse delete, probably a candidate for speedy. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This is clearly a fraudulent ownership claim from the Flickr user. We shall consider blacklisting him under COM:QFI. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
misuse of an image page for self-promotion/article/bio page Denniss (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- Out of scope. ZooFari 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete dito --El. (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation, considering the Flick user's other uploads. Blurpeace 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Marked in description as, "This file is Copyright 2009 to Danmw1 Inc. All Rights Reserved. NO USE WHATSOEVER!" which makes this file incompatible with Commons, no matter what the license chosen might be. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It is CC-BY-NC on Picasa Nillerdk (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DMH17H (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
die datei ist identisch zu Alte Bäckerei Lunzenau.JPG Andromeda78f (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy. Exact duplicate. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. sfu (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
presumable copyrighted building. FOP not valid due to photographer's position on another high building (see w:de:Hundertwasserentscheidung) Saibo (Δ) 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Question if it was taken from a different angle it would be under FOP then? Andyzweb (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- was soll dieser karnevals-scherz? und was ist dann mit den anderen [2] aufnahmen davon? dontworry (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Helau! But, I am sorry, this should not be a carnival's joke. You have got it correctly: Nearly all photographs from Category:View_from_Maintower have the same problem - in my opinion. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- was soll dieser karnevals-scherz? und was ist dann mit den anderen [2] aufnahmen davon? dontworry (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Andyzweb, yes FOP is valid, if it was taken from a public street or place. de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland: "Auch die Aufnahme von einem anderen Gebäude aus ist nicht zulässig, selbst wenn eine Genehmigung für das Betreten des Aufnahmestandpunktes vorliegt." --Saibo (Δ) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- dann wünsche ich ff (fiel fergniegen), bei der - nach deiner meinung anscheinend notwendigen - löschorgie. aber ich bin ausdrücklich nicht deiner meinung, denn dies würde alle aufnahmen von z.b. der "zeilgalerie" oder anderen aussichtspunkten von kirchtürmen u.ä. betreffen, das wäre ein schönes "blutbad"! dontworry (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I won't start mass deletions in this case - I was merely hoping to get some feedback to this problem. But it seems that the Hundertwasserentscheidung (see above) is obviously completely ignored on Commons. In fact, it would prohibit all photographs from high buildings in Germany. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your RfD finally ends in a mass deletion, I consider it a test case. --Eva K. is evil 17:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I won't start mass deletions in this case - I was merely hoping to get some feedback to this problem. But it seems that the Hundertwasserentscheidung (see above) is obviously completely ignored on Commons. In fact, it would prohibit all photographs from high buildings in Germany. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- dann wünsche ich ff (fiel fergniegen), bei der - nach deiner meinung anscheinend notwendigen - löschorgie. aber ich bin ausdrücklich nicht deiner meinung, denn dies würde alle aufnahmen von z.b. der "zeilgalerie" oder anderen aussichtspunkten von kirchtürmen u.ä. betreffen, das wäre ein schönes "blutbad"! dontworry (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- wenn dies (zitat):"...Dagegen sei von der Regelung nicht mehr gedeckt, wenn eine Aufnahme von einem für das allgemeine Publikum unzugänglichen Ort aus gemacht werde." (meint die panoramafreiheit) der auslöser für deine bedenken war, so trifft dies - nach meiner meinung - für die plattform des maintower nicht zu, weil sie ja für das allgemeine publikum - wenn auch kostenpflichtig - "zugänglich ist"! es ist vielleicht doch besser, wenn du derartige bewertungen (juristischen) fachleuten überlässt und nicht solche schnellschüsse aus der hüfte loslässt? dontworry (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Dontworry, auch das Nachbarhaus des Hundertwasserhauses wäre sicherlich jedem gegen Bezahlung zugänglich... Als öffentlich zugänglich, wenn hier ein Eintritt verlangt wird, würde ich es nicht ansehen.
This DR should not be a "bad joke". Eva, thank you for your appreciation. Seems that I am wasting my time here. I cited the sources for my concerns. See my comment above ("15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)").
Smial, is it possible that the wikipedia-article is a bit wrong here? In addition our guidelines on commons for the FOP are very insufficient. Sorry, I really have not studied law - I have only read our articles. Calm down a bit all, please - this is only a DR, not an attack on pearl harbor.
If you (Ralf Roletschek) consider the building as "simple craft" and not as "Baukunst" (UrhG § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4) sure, my concerns are void. Tell the architects that their work is no art! I said "presumeable copyrighted building". Well, so, this was obviously a wrong assumption. Keep - Deutsche Bank building is no Art (no "Baukunst") and photographer's position is public. --Saibo (Δ) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep nothing more than a bad joke. --Eva K. is evil 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep completely inappropriate interpretation of german law. -- smial (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep there's no reason at all to delete this image. --ST ○ 20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep not a building of architectural art, it's simple craft --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep german law. Steindy (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
no problems with German law Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A personal, low quality work of mine, which I intend to have removed. It has no encyclopedic value and I, as the creator, hereby request its deletion. This is a simple and personal request, which I believe does not require the creation of any subpages, therefore I am only adding this tag. Please notify me if I must complete all the steps. Cheers--Vito Genovese 12:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Common Good (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--El. (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom, bad quality Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
i am the owner and i no longer wish to have the image displayed. thank you. --Chester1632 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader has requested deletion, and we have sufficient similar images. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete dito. --El. (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Superceded by Category:Virgin VR-01 ----Midgrid (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why?--Tilla (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedydel? --El. (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- old: Virgin Racing VR-01 - new: Virgin VR-01 --El. (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
empty category Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image. ■ MMXX talk 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This was probably used on es:Michelle Legorreta, which has since been speedy deleted (twice). Googling shows she's most likely just some random schoolgirl. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete private photo. Per nom rationale. PoeticVerse (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Photo from EFE, see EXIF. Yet another bad image from 20minutos.es Martin H. (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check EXIF next time... Lobo
(howl?) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Photo from EFE, see EXIF. Yet another bad image from 20minutos.es Martin H. (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check EXIF next time... Lobo (howl?) 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, see http://www.recipeapart.com/rajput-nishan-e-haider-holders-pakistans-highest-military-award-for-bravery/ Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 18:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This is located in en:Arlington, Texas and there is no COM:FOP in the US. Also image was uploaded in 2007 and is no longer available on Flickr so license can not be verifyed but that should not be reason alone to delete. MGA73 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator, no FOP for artwork in the US. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for modern po-1978 art in the US. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 18:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It´s not a aerial photography of a farmland. It´s look like a mistake. El. (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC) --El. (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, for nominator's reasons, and because the current image is not useful for any purpose. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
not eligible for pd-art Cruccone (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
unclear copyright status of background image. Furthermore, if kept, the license should be GPL, because depicted ClamWin is under GPL. Saibo (Δ) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Although sponsored by NORAD, it remains unclear that this image was taken by a federal employee in the course of their official duties. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find out what is this; out of scope? copyvio? dw? no source or deccription, what is it anyway? ■ MMXX talk 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Just looking at it, it's evidently a graphic design intended to promote a nightclub called "Nectar." The shirt says "808empire", which is a Hawaii-based designer clothing store. That is all I could find out. 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.altergaz.fr/ in general says © 2010 Altergaz. Commons only accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes. Any design which is an artistic work may be copyrighted. http://www.altergaz.fr/ in general says © 2010 Altergaz. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of a copyrighted logo. –Tryphon☂ 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.altergaz.fr/ in general says © 2010 Altergaz. Commons only accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes. Any design which is an artistic work may be copyrighted. http://www.altergaz.fr/ in general says © 2010 Altergaz. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This file Altergaz.svg was created solely for Commons. It is an imitant of the original image at http://www.altergaz.fr/ but it is not a copy of the copyrighted work. There is no copyright on this file.
Deleted. Derivative work of a copyrighted logo. –Tryphon☂ 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is she notable? ■ MMXX talk 00:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Currently orphaned but she may become more notable in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, COM:SCOPE. --Polarlys (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Press image, the source says:"Karting images for download". Well, thats neither reuse, nor commercial reuse, nor modification, it not includes perpetual reuse and archiving or redistribution. The uploader claims the image beeing licensed under "GFDL", the source not mentions this license in one word, also no other free license. Martin H. (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- File:Aaro_Vainio_Zuera_2009.jpg
- File:Kart KF1 2007 01.jpg
- File:Kart KF3 2009.jpg
- File:Kart KF1 2007 03.jpg
- File:Kart A Kozlinski KF1 Macau 2009.jpg
- File:Kart KF2 2007 01.jpg
- File:Kart KF1 2007 02.jpg
Images are part of different promotion packages for the sport made available for free download by international karting federation CIK-FIA : CIK/FIA -> Media -> Press releases ->. As a matter of fact, the pictures, as well as many other documents with regard to the sport, are being offered for download under a "Press release" label, no mention of any type of restriction in their usage is to be found. Maybe license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (Attribution-Sharealike 3.0) would be more appropriate, in that is the case, it is easy to fix. - Wikig | talk to me | 08:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong direction. You said there is no mention of any type of restriction - we need mentioning of no restrictions. We require a clear mention of either a free license or a mention of free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial use and so on - e.g. a text like Template:Copyrighted free use as such a permission without licensing. The source only says download, well, thats as good as nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have sent all information regarding this matter to CIK-FIA today by email and asked for more information. Hopefully they will reply here. Regards - Wikig | talk to me | 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, licensing for press, no explicit free license. Restore later, if there is a written permission with an explicit license. --Polarlys (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The author is clearly wrong, the uploader placed his own name in the author field instead of the photographer name. Also the dating is not the same as at the "source": http://www.flickr.com/photos/26685137@N03/3483576576/. Additional it is not clear if the selected license applies, per source the photo was not created prior 1955. I dont know why the uploaded uploaded this in this bad condition (wrong author, strange dating), but Im interested to learn why. Martin H. (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Christian Peacemaker Teams" images fall under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. " But the stated source does not prove that this photograph appeared on that homepage. In accordance to that I could upload any photo from the web and say it is a " Christian Peacemaker" photograph. That's not in the sense of COmmons. This image must be found here (http://cpt.org/gallery/) anywhere and where exactly is the uploader's job. 132.199.33.80 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, that is not the uploader's job - perhaps CPT gave me the image through eMail, or a hard copy when I was at their office? I went to the trouble of contacting CPT and securing a release for not only this image - but all their images - under the Creative Commons - and providing proof of that. Don't go all deletionist because you can't be bothered to look through Iraqi galleries for the image. Sherurcij (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, images not found on http://cpt.org/gallery/ should have a dedicated OTRS ticket proving that they're from CPT and also released under a free license. –Tryphon☂ 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, no permission. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No evidence for permission as stated in version comment. See also https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Wikipedia:BWS#Datei:Ersterkohlenganzzugddr.jpg_-_bitte_l.C3.B6schen.21 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt/Archiv/2009/Juli#Datei:Ersterkohlenganzzugddr.jpg Saibo (Δ) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the NATO response force is an emanation of the Polish government... Is there some kind of PD-NATO copyright exemption? Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, no permission --Polarlys (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The image information says it is part of Desmond Wettern's catalogued photograph collect.[3] Wettern was a The Daily Telegraph's Naval correspondent.[4] As such this is not a work of the government, and would not classify as PD. Additionally I believe the second image to be a low res duplicate of the first. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently taken from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Sculpture_22_00035.htm. No evidence that the photographer and the sculptor are/were employees of the US Federal Government. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Barkley.jpg and File:Albenbarkley7.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Previously deleted for lacking source information and recreated (in lower resolution) without going through COM:UNDEL. Still appears to lack source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be a reasonable assumption. In that case, the image should be re-tagged, and the higher resolution version should be restored (another reason this should have gone through COM:UNDEL instead). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the higher resolution version should be restored. The text is in French, but this must be a local photo, as it was sent as a postcard with Turkish stamps, according to an item on Ebay (google("Smyrne Bohemiens"). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --El. (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems as though you forgot to state a reason. Keep in mind that this is not a vote. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is anyway more than 100 years old. --Olahus (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, no proper source. Undelete higher resolution version and tag it reasonably, if a source is available. --Polarlys (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- File:Old Korea-Keith-Water gate Suwon.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Old Korea-Keith-Contrast.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Old Korea-Keith-East Gate Seoul.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Old Korea-Keith-The country scholar-01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This is a procedural request for deletion since I contest Minor edit (talk · contribs)'s deletion requests for the 4 images based on the past discussion on the image. (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Old Korea-Keith-BRIDE.JPG)
Minor edit's speedy deletion rationale is "Authors were British and their book was published in London. So, it is not appropriate to apply {{PD-South Korea}} to this file. One of authors, E. Keith died in 1956, and the book was published in 1946, both were after 1940. Then, {{PD-UK-known}} cannot apply to this file."
--Caspian blue 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The reason was already written above.--Minor edit (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Changed a "no source" to a DR. Image was uploaded to it-wiki in 2007 and now Flickr user is not active. Therefore license can not be reviewed. I do not know the uploader on it-wiki but if there is no indications that image was not free then we do not have to delete the image. MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment We can only trust the uploader here since the flickr owner's account is deleted. Since there are no license problems with his uploads, I suppose, we may keep this low resolution photo....but it is safer to delete. It is up to the closing Admin to decide. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof of free license. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an official Peugeot image ? How can it be on Commons ? 193.56.37.1 11:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is the problem? Permission to use this image was confirmed through OTRS letter by official Peugeot representative in Russia. Is there a special rule that official images cannot be uploaded to Commons? --Maximkaaa (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Peugeot Russia does not own the copyright for these images. The rights for this image are owned by PSA Peugeot Citroën, a company incorporated in France. Hektor (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand the word representative means that Peugeot Russia represents PSA Peugeot Citroën in Russia, e. g. official permission from Peugeot Russia is actually official permission from PSA Peugeot Citroën. You don't ask an author if you can read his book printed by some publishing house though only the author is the rights owner and publishing house just represents him. Anyway I'm not a lawyer and cannot be sure about this things. Just make sure that before you delete these images you consult a competent specialist. --Maximkaaa (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Peugeot Russia does not own the copyright for these images. The rights for this image are owned by PSA Peugeot Citroën, a company incorporated in France. Hektor (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No rationale developped to justify the deletion. Dereckson (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you then pls. remove the DR-template from the imagedesciption page too. thx. --Jutta234 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Note that the debate has been reopened below. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like the OTRS ticket to be verified. This is an official Peugeot promotion picture, and a retailer in Russia cannot be a valid organization to provide such an authorization, since it does not own the rights of the pictures. Hektor (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- That does not mather IMO. If he's an official representative of peugeot, he can grant us the right to use it. If he didn't receive the rights to do so internally in the company, that's not our problem, but his. Generally, if someone claims to be the copyright owner of something and releases it under a certain license and it later gets clear that he indeed did not own the rights to do so, he's responsible for paying the (financial) damage to whoever used the image in good faith (or mere, to the real copyright holder). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep all the copyvios, let's lead users into error, let the situation deteriorate, let damages occur, let people sue each other and then let them all sue Wikimedia and the OTRS volunteer who mistakenly placed an approval tag? I don't think that's what we do. Our mission is not to trick people into disseminating a copyvio and create difficulties for everybody. When there is a serious doubt about the validity of a claim, and even more when it is quite clear that a claim cannot possibly be valid, then acting like it were valid and being reckless about the damaging consequences is encouraging the copyvio. Especially when a file is actively tagged with an OTRS ticket, which is tantamount to stating "trust us and take our word for it, Wikimedia guarantees you that this license is valid". -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. A representative cannot alienate completely different rights that he never owned nor was he ever mandated to transact in the first place. Thus a representative who is licensed to sell and service cars cannot sell or otherwise alienate the Peugeot company's intellectual properties, nor could he start selling or giving Peugeot's patents on a car model design, or sell or give one of Peugeot's manufacturing plants, or, while he's at it, sell or give the whole Peugeot company to one of his friends. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems it was an official representative of the company, not only someone of a car shop, so he is indeed able to sell its intellectual properties. As stated above, there's no reason not to believe that the claim is valid. If someone claims plausibly that he is the copyright owner, OTRS has little possibilities to question this. Just deleting a picture because we think that it might not be ever possible that someone releases such an image under PD would be counter-productive. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well there is a series of press release pictures of that car which are coming from the same source, I keep thinking that it wouldn't be such a large effort for the Foundation to contact Peugeot's Public Relations at their headquarters in Paris and check if they are happy with this OTRS. Hektor (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems it was an official representative of the company, not only someone of a car shop, so he is indeed able to sell its intellectual properties. As stated above, there's no reason not to believe that the claim is valid. If someone claims plausibly that he is the copyright owner, OTRS has little possibilities to question this. Just deleting a picture because we think that it might not be ever possible that someone releases such an image under PD would be counter-productive. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Back.jpg
- File:Peugeot SR1.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Front.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Left-Side.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-side.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-side.jpg]]
- DeletePeugeot will never license its images for us. Remember that our requirements are a license that allows image manipulation and commercial use. Why would Peugeot license its images for potential use by competitors in negative ads? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- Perhaps you believe these intellectual property things are just a joke. Then I invite you to read this article of wired. 195.169.141.54 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question Where did that come from? -- I think you misunderstand -- I take IP very seriously -- it's been a significant part of my life and income for 32 years. My remark about Peugeot was perfectly serious -- they have absolutely no incentive to freely license their photos of their cars. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jim: I don't agree. They might well be interested in their promo pics being published all over the place. Any image of the car not created by Peugeot cam be freely licensed, so we could as well host a very similar image without any problem (removing the background isn't too difficult for someone understanding photoshop). That one might not use such an image in a negative advertisement campaign is not a copyright issue but is regulated in local advertisement laws. These are quite different for different countries. While it is legal in the US to make jokes about competitor's products in ads, it's illegal to do so in most of europe. But again: This is not a copyright issue. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem. I guess the Comment was not intended for you. Hektor (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Once again : why not just check with the PR guys of Peugeot in Paris ? Ask them if they are happy with this OTRS ticket ? this is the most straightforward solution. Hektor (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, if OTRS assumes this permission as valid, it should be assumed to be valid until proved otherwise. Kameraad Pjotr 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The head is too small, and the neck is to short. The legs should not have kneecaps, and the forelimbs should not have claws. In short, this illustration is far too inaccurate to be on Wikipedia. 81.231.20.92 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Added note to alert users to potential problem. Note that we have an IP user claiming it's not good and User:Coty with tens, maybe hundreds of similar images undisputed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
----
This is a work of the Philippines government which is considered non-free by Wikipedia. See en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete The province was founded in 1967, so it did not have time to become public domain before the governmental copyright law. Delete per Bluemask. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence has been presented that this photograph was published before 1978 without a copyright notice. The image description says it's from a poster of unknown date with no copyright notice. The poster could have been published last year for all we know. Kaldari (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, 1930s poster, AGF on uploader's behalf that the poster did not carry a notice. Kameraad Pjotr 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}