Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
EIffel night lights are copyrighted by Eiffel_tower#Image_copyright_claims Justass (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how I missed that copyright on the lights. Go ahead and delete it. TFCforever (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Blurpeace 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No information on the copyright status of the statue. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No FOP for that in the US. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no Commons:Freedom of panorama in origin country
copyrighted to Blue Fantasies, not to any of the Luke Ford website. Eusebius (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
converted by me to rfd from a speedy by IP 77.56.162.147 for "declared as "Vanity photo of a friend", imho out of scope, see also File:TD1500ppx.jpg by same uploader". --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: "User request"
converted by me to rfd from a speedy by IP 77.56.162.147 for "declared as "Vanity photo of a friend", imho out of scope, see also File:VM1300ppx.jpg by same uploader". --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: User request
out of COM:SCOPE; not even used on uploader's userpage --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: User request
out of COM:SCOPE; not even used on uploader's userpage --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: User request
Not used anywhere. Probably CopyvioKarsten11 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC) --Karsten11 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright iolation from http://www.breda97.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:maak-gebruik-van-uw-stemrecht&catid=1:fractie&Itemid=6 -- Common Good (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I put it in the wrong place... should be in dutch wikipedia as 'Bestand'... Hogervorst.bas (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You did it right, Commons serves for all wikiprojects and dutch wikipedia as well, just try to put image in the article like this [[Bestand:Vivien van Geen.jpg|thumb|200px|Vivien van Geen]] --Justass (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. no need to delete. problem solved -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
the " More recent picture of Vivien van Geen" doesn't look like it came from the same author. It's a low-res studio photo that has been taken from some other website Vera (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Affected versionsin the file history have been removed. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
unused, useless, self promo Frédéric (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
per nom, user informemd since janary Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very fuzzy, bad quality Frédéric (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
user informed in january, could imo be speedy because of missing quality Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Record catalogue number in the bottom right "CDWIK2 273" corresponds to this compilation album released by Big Beat Records last year%2C featuring Big Star. I think it's pretty likely that the flickr user just scanned the image without permission from the copyright holder! Papa November (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I uploaded it here from Flickr but agree that given the above observation it should be deleted, as should File:Chris_bell,_1969.jpg which I uploaded from the same source. PL290 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Hekerui (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio. Only other contribution by same contributor is another version of the same book jacket Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've now notified the uploader, but it seems to me like a pretty clear copyvio. - Jmabel ! talk 08:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic self-promoting self-portrait for realty business Calton (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
uploader informed since january, deleted per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, no encyclopedic value, useless Frédéric (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
user notifed in january, deleted per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless Frédéric (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
terrible quality, could have been a case for speedy deletion Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio. Only other contribution by same contributor is another version of the same book jacket Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
copyvio from http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06b/3709945-3709945-3710111-3940731-3940731-3900933-3900935.html Mbdortmund (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
user informed since January Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, self promo logo, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
see disc Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Picture taken from a company's website [1]. I suppose, it's a copyright infringement. ChrisHamburg (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I now notified the uploader, but it seems to me that this can be kept. This file has higher resolution than the image on the website, and it has good EXIF data. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
per Pieter Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless self promotion Frédéric (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Taiwan_2009_Taipei_Billboard_Featuring_Zhang_ZiYi_Across_From_Pacific_Sogo_ZhongXiao_Store_FRD_9045.jpg
[edit]
not covered by FOP 78.55.160.216 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 10:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Well, I took the picture and uploaded it. But I did not realize this is not allowed. I wish the deletion notice points people to this FOP section for convenience. Apparently in Taiwan one can't take pictures of artistic works. I will proceed to remove links to this image from various wiki pages. Thanks for pointing this out. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, FOP doesn't apply at all, because the work is not permanently placed there. So even if Taiwan had a broader FOP for works of art, it would be irrelevant. Just wanted to clarify that point. –Tryphon☂ 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now I am confused. So what applies? What's then the reason for its removal? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- COM:DW applies. It's a derivative work, just like any picture of a copyrighted picture. –Tryphon☂ 07:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most enlightening. Can't someone just click a link or something to remove this file already? Fred Hsu (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- COM:DW applies. It's a derivative work, just like any picture of a copyrighted picture. –Tryphon☂ 07:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now I am confused. So what applies? What's then the reason for its removal? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, FOP doesn't apply at all, because the work is not permanently placed there. So even if Taiwan had a broader FOP for works of art, it would be irrelevant. Just wanted to clarify that point. –Tryphon☂ 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Tryphon. Pmlineditor · discuss 13:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
see disc here Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. AND Advertising or self-promotion. Kenmayer (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. / Fred J (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy, and no indication that the author of the plaque died over 70 years ago. Blurpeace 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, same for File:Casa Coppi.JPG. Blurpeace 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 15:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
scan - should be used in a wikinews story, but wasnt used - out of scope and useless for others Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
unused sign, unusable for others, out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
image of commercail logo Samuell (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Image constitutes original research, as it is taking an existing text, in this case the Book of Revelation, and drawing conclusions based on it. Proposed for deletion after discussion here. Creator of the file is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete.This is the user's own conclusions / views about the apocalypse (see user's personal website, linked on userpage, which includes the same OR). If this were attributable to a notable scholar, group, etc - in a verifiable way - then maybe (i.e., if the source for the image itself were somewhere/one notable, not that it is an image based on someone's understanding of a notable text). As is, it is straight up original research. Athanasius1 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep -- The Wikipedia "No original researtch" policies do not in fact apply at Wikimedia Commons, so the deletion rationale is irrelevant. See current discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Is_Original_Research_permitted_for_files_on_Commons.3F ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- That make's sense - I don't spend much time over at commons myself, so appreciate the guidence. I gues the issue then, (to be solved at en.wiki) is the images use in articles. Again, thanks. Athanasius1 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is not free webhosting for your own church documents. A diagram like this one that shows only mainline Protestant pre-mil pre-trib eschatology (along with similar diagrams for mid-trib/pre-wrath, post-trib, etc) would be useful in articles if one does not already exists, but this one has several elements that are not appropriate. This diagram is kinda sorta based on a pre-wrath rapture, but has several elements that are not believed by any notable doctrine and thus this diagram is outside of project scope. For one, I don't know anyone who teaches that at the time of the rapture, there will be an "anti-rapture" of people going to Hell, which is what this diagram presents. Also, occasionally, you see a partial rapture doctrine, but I don't think any mainline Church ties it to the 144K. The bottom line: this is some guy's diagram, and not something useful for an encyclopedia. It's a good idea, but we need encyclopedic diagrams on the subject. This is not about what is or isn't scriptural truth or what is or isn't going to happen - it's about what doctrines are notable, thus suitable for an encyclopedia, and thus within project scope. --UserB (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - no opinion on whether it belongs at Commons. However, it is has a very definite POV, and constitutes OR at best; thus it does not belong in any Wikipedia article. LadyofShalott (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Something I had suggested a long time ago was an IFD-like process for Wikipedia to block Commons images that don't meet Wikipedia policies. (We have the technical ability to do it through the bad image list or by an admin uploading an image to Wikipedia in the way of the Commons image - but there is no process for determining a consensus to do so.) This would be a perfect example of why we need it - if Commons wants to keep this image for whatever reason (a spectacularly bad idea since it has no encyclopedic use), Wikipedia would have a recourse to IFD it there. --UserB (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This diagram is a personal opinion, not something based on some recognised standard, and it would never be used by a wiki project. Plus the choice of numerous colours and fonts is dreadful, unnecessary, and makes it difficult for people to read, especially those with eyesight issues. Newman Luke (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this corresponds to the dogma of any organized religious group, then identify and keep. Otherwise, I'd be weakly inclined to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope, non-notable doctrine. Can't be used to illustrate anything suitable for Wikimedia projects and thus has no educational character in the meaning of COM:SCOPE. Polarlys (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The man that is pictured is being named as author, which can obviously not be true for a portrait like this. So permission is lacking. Rosenzweig δ 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Btw, the man died last year, so when was he supposed to give any permission? --Rosenzweig δ 09:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
no valid source Frédéric (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comparing with other work, I am quite sure that uploader made the drawing; "source: google" just indicates where the information came from; not very satisfactory, but this is not a copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. All similar uploads are tagged as "own work", except this one. Polarlys (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Lacks notability (see the link to wikipedia page and discussion there) Kenmayer (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Somehow my preferences blocked that window from being opened. I manually notified the user.--Kenmayer (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has been notified but has also been absent for quite a while. The history over on enwiki tells me that we are unlikely to have an encyclopedic article for this to live in, and the image is not interesting enough that I can see a use anywhere else - Peripitus (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dantwann --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Used only for user page spamming. Polarlys (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Fictional symbol taken from a Marvel comics work, therefore copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No source for the photo. Copyright of this photo belongs to the photographer, even if the subject is 1800 years old. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Photo from the en:Larco Museum. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I transwikied it over based on the Move to Commons project. I have no issue with its deletion. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader claimed that this was a free image, but the similarity with images on http://www.museolarco.org/fgal_cu.shtml etcetera indicates that it was not his own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I see, looks very much like those professional images there. So either someone go to that museum and take new pictures or assume the uploader really was the photographer (i.e. because he works there or something). --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader claimed that this was a free image, but the similarity with images on http://www.museolarco.org/fgal_cu.shtml etcetera indicates that it was not his own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the FOP in the Canada does not cover 2D artworks. The mural is therefore protected by copyright. JD554 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
invented and low resolution CoA for Hispanicity HansenBCN (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader was not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - User notified on January 29, 2010. After some research, I have not found any verifiable source for this coat of arms. All the images available in the web are a copy of this file; no official institution in any Hispanic country has even a minor reference. Cinabrium (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Photographer Vittorio Sella died in 1943, hence this is a copyvio AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored: Now OK. Yann (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
unused, no encyclopedic value, useless Frédéric (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No Copyright, Licensing Conflict. Is has to be deleted, now. Apfel-wie-Birne (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to admins: The User Apfel-Wie-Birne nominated the corresponding article on the german wikipedia ([2]) for deletition "because it was edited" - aparently he did not understand the wiki principle, and now tries to remove the texts he posted on wikipedia (with valid GFDL-Licensing on OTRS) again. This speedy deletition nomination appears to be connected to that. See [3] (german) for dialog about that. ----Theophilius (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- As this is a contemporary photo, it should be checked whether its release is really covered by this OTRS ticket. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't covered by the ticket you mention. —Pill (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No Copyright, Licensing Conflict. Is has to be deleted, now. Apfel-wie-Birne (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note to admins:' The User Apfel-Wie-Birne nominated the corresponding article on the german wikipedia ([4]) for deletition "because it was edited" - aparently he did not understand the wiki principle, and now tries to remove the texts he posted on wikipedia (with valid GFDL-Licensing on OTRS) again. This speedy deletition nomination appears to be connected to that. See [5] (german) for dialog about that--Theophilius (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- As of the impressum in this pdf version of the brochure/book (page 2; >6 MByte), this may have been without proper permission from the beginning: "Copyright © 2001 by Wolfgang Bluhm, Markus Lenz, Marc Andreas Natusch". --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is also at http://www.1x1reisefreiheit.de/ - the Burschenschaft may not own the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Unpreferable File Name Mezzoman87 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You can use the {{Rename}} template; however, is this press image really free enough according to commons standards? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Strange licensing. Polarlys (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
too big Admiral hudson (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete too big is not an issue, the software resizes the image see en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Per en:Presumed Innocent (band) the band seems not notable, the image is the usual band spam and out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation, Klee died in 1940. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep If you must delete it, so be it. The file, though, is a rather blurry, low-resolution photo, with visible glare reflecting from the glass, and so, of no use to anyone at all (save for here on Wikipedia).
- Contact me if you have any questions.Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 10:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's only one more year. Where do we list such images for later restoration? --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the existence of such a list, but I suspect it might exist somewhere (maybe even in user space). You might want to ask on COM:VP before creating a new page, to avoid having redundant lists. –Tryphon☂ 08:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Restored, as copyright has expired. --Dereckson (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
useless for samand article 87.107.33.250 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1.low quality Image 2.useless 87.107.33.250 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. See http://www.noblecollection.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=NN7017&catid=21. BrokenSphere 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably COM:DW. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
no proof of model consent.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator; uploader's only contribution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Photo of a non notable band (the article was deleted in ruwiki), out of project scope. --Blacklake (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright violation (source is myspace) and apparently out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. AND possible copyright violation Kenmayer (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently cropped from a promotional image/taken from a company website of some sort. Likely copyrighted, considering it was used in a deleted advert on en.wikipedia. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently cropped from a promotional image/taken from a company website of some sort. Likely copyrighted, considering it was used in a deleted advert on en.wikipedia. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
photo of copyrighted poster 24.61.11.153 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is this any different from the various pictures on w:Australian federal election, 2007 like the "Rudd wins" poster or the "Latham and the economy" poster at w:Australian federal election, 2004? (Well, only one's on the Commons.) Cassowary (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
this is a duplicate of File:Kit body manutd 09-10 away.png with the transparency replaced with by solid black and the Nike logo added. The Nike logo is not allowed as it is copyrighted, and all images intended for use in en:Template:Football kit should have some transparency. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kit_body_manutd0910a.png
A version of the image appears on the homepage of http://www.chefmcdang.com , suggesting that the image, including this version, is owned by McDang, Inc. and OTRS permission is needed to be used on Commons. Paul_012 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not derived from the website. Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted, as missing from July's log. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- exif data seem to be an argument for the authorship --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep maybe the photograph used it on the homepage an too in the commons - tentativly no copyviolation, but selfpromotion. The article about this person is disputed. Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. What do we do when there is a photo on a website and someone uploads this photo and there is no connection between the website and the uploader visible? Yes, we demand an OTRS permission. :-) Polarlys (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It was uploaded the photograph which I photographed without permission.--SACHEN (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- How could you need to have a permission to take a picture of a flower? --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely copyvio, see resolution and metadata Polarlys (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
E-mail exchange mentions only Wikipedia and vaguely the public domain, not a cc-by-sa-2.0 license. The original at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattcrockett/3694807343 is still listed as copyrighted. The E-Mail exchange could just be made up, OTRS from author required. Hekerui (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image passed Flickr review so any exchange of messages regarding this is irrelevant, the bot has confirmed that it has been licensed under CC-BY-2.0. That it is no longer licensed in that way on Flickr doesn't make that licence no longer valid. Adambro (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I need to look at this further. It could be a case of Flickr washing, albeit well intentioned rather than deliberate. Adambro (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of minutes ago I emailed off a copy of my original email from Matt Crockett (the original photographer) for OTRS. Luckily Crockett's Flickr note to me was emailed to my off-Flickr address but my note to him is in the Flickr system. It's still there but being the Flickr messaging system I'm at a loss as to how to use this as proof; I guess I could take a screen shot and email that in. Hopefully the email I have copied (considering the file dates will match up with the original information pasted on the Commons entry) will be sufficient to give credibility to my claim that this was correctly requested from the originator and suitably released. Ash (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I got the original author to release the original image as cc-by-sa-2.0. This means the image is now in breach of the share-alike provision. Hekerui (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment. The image has been cropped (a suitable derivative) and has appropriate attribution. As you have now confirmed the license status this means it is in compliance precisely with the license the original photographer intended (as per my original comments on the photograph). Ash (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You may have meant that the license was cc-by-2.0 rather than cc-by-sa-2.0. This has now been corrected. Are you done now? Ash (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The source is still bad - the flickr image page displays a false license, infringing on the original author's rights, and the file is orphaned and superseded by versions with much better resolution. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- What are you on about? You have no reason to doubt my original correspondance with Matt Crockett, as evidenced by my emailing for an OTRS once you challenged the image and the fact that Matt changed permission on his original file when requested today. I uploaded the image in good faith. You appear have recreated the exact same image just to make a point here. If you ask me to make corrections I will, however your comments are overly pointed and non-collaborative. I have just changed the flickr license to "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", had you asked me to do that I would have. Now, are you done trying to make me look like I have done something wrong here, or are you prepared to accept my actions are in good faith? Ash (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is not about you, the source is flickr-washed and you changing the license to conform with the license of the original is not understandable for someone only looking at this page. Also, you can't change the license of a work you have not contributed to and the image as uploaded is a derivative work done by the flickr user. And it's obsolete anyway because he/she used a lower quality version for the crop and a better version can (and has been) be created from the original. Good faith goes both ways, don't accuse of making a point when I have made two reasonable arguments in line with Commons policy. Hekerui (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That seems sophistry as this image is a derivative tracable to the original under the same license which specifically allows derivatives and attribution is now correct. I honestly do not understand why that is not sufficient. Ash (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is not about you, the source is flickr-washed and you changing the license to conform with the license of the original is not understandable for someone only looking at this page. Also, you can't change the license of a work you have not contributed to and the image as uploaded is a derivative work done by the flickr user. And it's obsolete anyway because he/she used a lower quality version for the crop and a better version can (and has been) be created from the original. Good faith goes both ways, don't accuse of making a point when I have made two reasonable arguments in line with Commons policy. Hekerui (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- What are you on about? You have no reason to doubt my original correspondance with Matt Crockett, as evidenced by my emailing for an OTRS once you challenged the image and the fact that Matt changed permission on his original file when requested today. I uploaded the image in good faith. You appear have recreated the exact same image just to make a point here. If you ask me to make corrections I will, however your comments are overly pointed and non-collaborative. I have just changed the flickr license to "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", had you asked me to do that I would have. Now, are you done trying to make me look like I have done something wrong here, or are you prepared to accept my actions are in good faith? Ash (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You may have meant that the license was cc-by-2.0 rather than cc-by-sa-2.0. This has now been corrected. Are you done now? Ash (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment. The image has been cropped (a suitable derivative) and has appropriate attribution. As you have now confirmed the license status this means it is in compliance precisely with the license the original photographer intended (as per my original comments on the photograph). Ash (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I got the original author to release the original image as cc-by-sa-2.0. This means the image is now in breach of the share-alike provision. Hekerui (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The license on both the original and the crop is now cc-by-sa-2.0.
- I also have trouble finding out what more is wanted. Is there any doubt that mattcrockett24 / Matt Crockett is the photographer and copyright holder? If the problem is bad source etc. then that can be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I looked it wasn't and was changed by Ash after I requested it here, thank you very much. Here, I even fixed the disorganised page. Hekerui (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Hekerui (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and discovered it had many difficulties. I uploaded a new version in svg format, and this version is no longer needed. Thenub314 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, not in use, replaced by File:Linalg angle bisection.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the FOP in the Canada does not cover 2D artworks. The mural is therefore protected by copyright. JD554 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mah, I don't think. This is just a simple photograph of a road or, more simply, the photographof a part of a city. --Superzen 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The primary image is the mural. The primary purpose of the image is the mural. There's a clue in the name of the file and the description there. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think that they would allow FOP for statues but not for paintings. Unfortunatelly, the law is really not 100% clear in what artistic craftmanship really means. In the definition part, it says that it is a kind of artistic work. But it generally says
OK on the corresponding commons page, i'd think we accept this. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- A lot of countries make a distinction between 2D and 3D artworks . Not being clear on what artistic craftsmanship really means isn't relevant, when it is clear that the mural is a painting. S.2 of the the act states: "'artistic work' includes paintings". Just because paintings aren't specified in the exemptions of S. 32.2 (1)(b), doesn't mean it was an oversight, it means they aren't exempted in the way that sculptures are. --JD554 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that COM:FOP#Canada says: "Canadian law was originally derived from UK concepts and some of the United Kingdom section may therefore be of relevance, in particular the restricted legal meaning of 'work of artistic craftsmanship'."
- And COM:FOP#United_Kingdom says: "Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from graphic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place." --JD554 (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see. Strange distinction, though. Why can't they just make it easy? Oh, well... There's maybe some lawyers loosing their job then ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploader does not appear to hold copyright, this is a promotional image from the label. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn, user emailed me to say that he does own the image. 24.247.209.58 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe this image is on the PD. Damiens.rf 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be the official portrait photo of a Congress Member of the federal government and appears on a federal website with no other attribution. MECU≈talk 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Bidgee (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A newer file exist: File:PokerHandRankings.pdf --Jeanot (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The title of the new document fits better the the title in the file.
- The author seems to restrict commercial use (see the bottom of the document).
- The creation date in this PDF is older.
- The weigth of this version is higther.
--Jeanot (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Silly file type (pdf). This, plus it supersedition, add up to a good reason for deletion. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion request by person in question who up-loaded it.--Gel (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial
[edit]- File:Arlington_Cemetary_WWII.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BW Korean War Memorial Back.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BW Korean War Memorial Back2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ghostly.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Image-Korean War Memorial Reflecting Wall.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korea War Monument.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korea memorial 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korean Veterans Memorial 1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korean Veterans Memorial 2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korean Veterans Memorial 3.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korean War Memorial 82490561.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Korean War Memorial Back.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
And so on.. Pretty much every image of Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial
According to this article at [6], the US Court ruled that the creator of the sculptures at Korean War Memorial has the copyright of the sculptures.
US Postal Services lost the court battle for copyright violation, for using an image from the sculptures on the postal stamp.
This means that the images of the Memorial on Commons also violates copyright of Frank Gaylord, the creator of the sculptures because US does not recognizes Commons:Freedom of panorama for sculptures. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The category should have a notice similar to Category:Atomium. William Avery (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Same deal as Category:The Motherland Calls. I hope someday the US will implement FoP for sculptures and these can be restored. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Wow. Delete post-haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I wish there were someway to make this easier to understand for contributors who make good faith efforts to add these photos. I've gotten some dings on other sculpture photos in parks. It does stir hard feelings when the underlying reasoning is not clear (or even has an article on Wikipedia) or not intuitive -- it would seem to defy all logic that a national monument cannot be photographed. I placed the Korean War section in several places hoping that the policy will be made clear in a referenced article so that these types of deletions won't continue to stir hard feelings.Americasroof (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- More important thing is that since the memorial is authorized by US Senate, built by American Battle Monuments Commission, and operated by National Park Service, without the information regarding the court case and creator information, there is reasonable belief that it is work of US government and therefore, public domain. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- But, we do have information about the court case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Transwiki images in the Wikipedia Korean War Veterans Memorial Article to Wikipedia - Though it does fall under copyright law (which was an obscure fact before the recent lawsuits and many of these pictures were from before the verdicts), the ones in the article can still be justified with fair use. Fair use depends on its use, which is different here, and as it says here, no single factor eliminates the possibility of a fair use claim. Wikipedia is a nonprofit educational purpose, while in the government's case, it is honorific but it is also commercial (it raises revenue for the Postal Service). Nonprofit educational purposes have been found time and time again to be fair use.--Jorfer (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course at least some of these should be uploaded for fair use on En, at lower resolution. However, there is nothing "obscure" about the laws involved (these problematic images were merely overlooked, we were well aware this type of image is not permitted). Moreover, you should never assume that images on Wikipedia will be used only for "nonprofit educational" purposes - Wikipedia is designed to be reproduced for commercial purposes. Nevertheless, low-resolution versions of these images should still qualify as fair use, provided they're used in context in articles. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: these image are clearly copyright violations under US law but transwikifying may not be the answer because en:WP:NFCC#3a only allows minimal use which generally means the use of only one image, so moving all of them would be a problem. Currently en:Korean War Veterans Memorial shows several images, many from the commons, and most local images are up for deletion now too. Unfortunately many editors don't know or understand FOP. Ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. These two files can be kept here: File:Korean_veterans_memorial_full_20041011_103249_1.3008x2000.jpg (Incidental inclusion) File:Korean_War_Memorial_Reflection.JPG (does not include the sculpture) SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Niels Bohr's designs
[edit]- File:Ebohr3.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ebohr4.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No indication that Niels Bohr's original designs have fallen out of copyright. Blurpeace 02:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly, according to the rules on commons, these images are not sufficiently free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Niels Bohr died 1962, so there's quite some time to wait... --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship. Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I must say, now you're being pedantic. A press picture owned by a press agency in 1938 can be assumed to have been published in that year with a very high probability. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per PaterMcFly; the raster is obvious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. We
- 1) assumed here a cooperate authorship, is this possible in german copyright?
- 2) assume that no author is known without doing any research, I not received an answer on my email to the image archive of the city of Nuremberg so far and Im wating for this.
- 3) The uploader must provide evidence that the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publicatin, this is not done.
Martin H. (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, here is a different photo of Liebel, from the Hoffmann archive and terehby still copyright-protected in Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Know this, I searched all larger online databases I know (BArch, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, some smaller), regretably the whole world isnt online ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- To 1) No, not that I knew. But it is common for cooperations to have the sole right on the works. It is especially very common that people grant full rights on their works to their employer in return for their payment.
- To 2) I had assumed that the uploader really found that picture in those archives and there was no name on it.
- To 3) If an image is published and archived anonymously, I doubt anyone has published the same image with the name of the author some time later. Remember that there weren't dozends of copies of one image created in those times. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source provided to establish copyright status. "Presseamt" is no source at all. No sign of any research done to establish copyright status of this image. Polarlys (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There was deletion demand by those who took a picture. --Gel (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep licenses are not revocable, besides request come from user who did only transfer from local wiki to Commons not from the authors. Also please note User:Gel behavior with try to remove information templates[7][8], blanking of the images --Justass (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Question: This image lacks author information and history. Were I the original uploader on jawp, I might be upset that my work is on commons and I'm not getting credited for it as the CC and GFDL licenses say I should. Can one of the editors who are in favour of keeping, or the closer if it is closed as keep, please fix the attribution, etc? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PC_Engine_LT.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=36046499&oldid=36046489){kind=link}
- Or, as Simonxag pointed out at the related discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC Engine CD-ROM2 Interface Unit.jpg, the problem might parse as "copyvio". Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Media without a license as of 2 March 2010; no license
Image File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942.jpg which this image based on is not free (see its nomination for deletion). Jaroslavleff (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Serebr (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of copyrighted materials. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. Image source: United Nations Information Office, New York. [9]. It is not USA governiment. 178.176.226.12 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The image is sourced to Kennedy, John F., Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio and the site's copyright policy, I don't believe that you can make the case that this particular image is in the public domain. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has now been notified. –Tryphon☂ 10:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The source (ikonomika.org) is under a free license. However, there is no evidence that the site maintainer actually holds the copyright of this photo. Since there are a lot of photos, that the author obviously didn't take (Putin, etc.), we can not assume he took this one. DStoykov (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Doubtful authorship claim. –Tryphon☂ 09:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
from http://www.nostate.com/1614/back-in-the-village-again/ allowance missing Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- "allowance missing"? What does that even mean? Besides, it's a government document uploaded by the individual on the image, and the bottom of the site specifically says it's CCA3.0, if anything; am I missing something here? —IW4UTenW 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader is same person as blog dude. -Nard the Bard 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 10:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This clearly has the wrong license as a scan of a passport bio-page cannot possibly be licensed by the holder as its a derivative image and owned by the Slovak authorities. Spartaz (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There're three things which can be copyrighted: 1) The crest, but that seems to fall into public domain. 2) The design of the background, but it could easily be argued as de minimis, since it's not the subject of the scan, but yet can't possibly be removed. 3) The overall design... and here I do not know. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be daft. The overall design is clearly a work of art which should belong to the Slovak government. Looking at it, I can see a range of unique features that will be deliberate and intentional device of the design that makes this a work of art. There is hologram over the image, fine-line background printing that is a unique design and contains a rainbow printed element to prevent fraud. The format of the personalisation is a standard laser engraving so isn't a work of art and the layout of the overprint reflects an ICAO standard so is not unique to this design. I can see an embossed design from the surface of the polycarbonate substrate that is also a unqiue feature of the document that contines an intentional design that incorporates micro-test that requires magnification to see clearly. On that basis, I can see at least 3 and possibly 4 unique elements to this data page that makes this a work of art and subject to copyright. Whatever the argument its certainly incorrectly licensed. Spartaz (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was not daft, I gave a comment about how I see the situation. I refuse to even read the rest of your comment since it is clear that you were simply trying to be insulting and not raise any issues. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be daft. The overall design is clearly a work of art which should belong to the Slovak government. Looking at it, I can see a range of unique features that will be deliberate and intentional device of the design that makes this a work of art. There is hologram over the image, fine-line background printing that is a unique design and contains a rainbow printed element to prevent fraud. The format of the personalisation is a standard laser engraving so isn't a work of art and the layout of the overprint reflects an ICAO standard so is not unique to this design. I can see an embossed design from the surface of the polycarbonate substrate that is also a unqiue feature of the document that contines an intentional design that incorporates micro-test that requires magnification to see clearly. On that basis, I can see at least 3 and possibly 4 unique elements to this data page that makes this a work of art and subject to copyright. Whatever the argument its certainly incorrectly licensed. Spartaz (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Does {{PD-SlovakGov}} apply here, or is that tag only for text? The wording does suggest that it might only apply to text. Also, we don't know whether the photo was made by the government or not. In some countries, people applying for a document like this brings a photo from some unknown source to the place where you apply for the document. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY 23:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deletion request by person in question who up-loaded it.--Gel (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain why you (or the author) think this image should be deleted. Simply being the uploader (or the author) doesn't give any special power over the image deletion. Without a good rationale, the image will not be deleted. Also note that you should not blank the image description page when requesting deletion. –Tryphon☂ 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- There was deletion demand by those who took a picture. --Gel (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then keep, no valid reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As for this photograph, the post of the auction image is included. Please delete it at once. --SACHEN (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you mean. If you prefer, you can write in Japanese and someone will translate it. –Tryphon☂ 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- The image of the PC Engine system is copied what I am not taking a picture of everything from other homepages. Therefore, please delete it. Moreover, 風霧 and the Gel are accounts besides me.--SACHEN (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Without doing the conversation refusal Delete this file at once.--SACHEN (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The image of the PC Engine system is copied what I am not taking a picture of everything from other homepages. Therefore, please delete it. Moreover, 風霧 and the Gel are accounts besides me.--SACHEN (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you mean. If you prefer, you can write in Japanese and someone will translate it. –Tryphon☂ 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As for this photograph, the post of the auction image is included. Please delete it at once. --SACHEN (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then
- There was deletion demand by those who took a picture. --Gel (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Assuming that Gel and sachen are the same person and all is above board. Sachen seems to be saying that they copied these images from auction sites rather than taking the photos themself. --Simonxag (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I read this the same as Simonxag. If SACHEN or Gel read this, can they confirm that this is the problem (or explain things in Japanese)? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to explain what Simonxag meant about it. It is the one that these images from the site of the auction were copied. --SACHEN (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
image copied from a copyrighted website per SACHEN Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion request by person in question who up-loaded it.--Gel (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
image copied from a copyrighted website per SACHEN Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion request by person in question who up-loaded it.--Gel (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
image copied from a copyrighted website per SACHEN Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion request by person in question who up-loaded it.--Gel (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
image copied from a copyrighted website per SACHEN Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
To dark and no usefull information Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Its not much brighter in that place. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
maybe this is PD-old, but definitely not a creative commons license, especially not a "non-commercial" one. Polarlys (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See also:
- o.k. PD-old. --Messina (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
correct license added Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This file has been substitued on the page: Casalvacchio_Siculo_Wiki_Italia with a new one, bigger, and better quality. This one is too small and is no more used on any wikipedia page. --Decio Mure (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
converted by me to rfd from a speedy by uploader User:Jerembeye for "je veux retirer mon document de commons". --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
not in use , personal rights problems Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The permission pasted on the image page sounds like it's limited to Wikipedia, and doesn't state a license explicitly. An OTRS ticket is required for this. –Tryphon☂ 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission is not clear enough ("for use on Wikipedia"). Can be undeleted if better permission is send for OTRS. MGA73 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Description states that permission was given by the author of the book but no ORTS is filed. I doubt the author really gave persion for this user to scan the image into the commons Wizard191 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I copied image description text for this image, this is why the permission entry was placed on the image description. It did file a permission for the image at the creators of the book, but since it is already a pretty old book, the creators (Marshall Cavendish) were unable to retrieve the book in question. Regardless, however, I simply made my own version of the image (you may notice it was colored/created with the GIMP). As it is thus my image, and as I release it to the public domain, the image is completely legal and uploaded in the correct way.
KVDP (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I find that explanation pretty dubious, because the image appears to me to be a scan with English descriptions added via an image processor. Also, if you never got permission from the author (as you state above), then the description shouldn't say that you did. Wizard191 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no proof the copyright holder of the original image ever released the image into the public domain.--Rockfang (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright status is to unclear. Permission says "Permission was given by Marshall Cavendish for use at Wikimedia Commons" and that is not a good permission. MGA73 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I nominate this for deletion because User:Wikipeder insists on tagging it as "no license", and refuses to file an ordinary deletion request. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as this is in the public domain according to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Question Why is E. Mantey given as the author? Are they just the author of the book? Does anyone have access to that book to check if the picture is indeed uncredited? –Tryphon☂ 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, User:Wikipeder had changed that too, in this rather destructive edit. I will change it back to "unknown". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, how can you say "no author disclosure" - whats your source? Whats your evidences? --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- The caption of this photo in von Mantey's book clearly does not give the name of the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- That not makes the 1) image first published in the book, it was maybe published before with author disclosure 2) photographers identity not publicly disclosed as the wish of that photographer, not as the mistake of that book author. In fact: You dont have any evidences that this image was published anonymously or pseudonymously by its author. --Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, nothing will satisfy Martin H. His reasoning would make photos unfree for about 150 years (maybe for 180 years to be on the safe side), unless there is incontrovertable proof that the attribution to a photographer who has been certifiably dead for more than 70 years is absolutely correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's just simply the legal situation, if we like it or not. „Possibly PD“ is not a free licence. --Wikipeder (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly Wikipeder. Im aware that some people understand this kind of legal assessing as funny guessing games. --Martin H. (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- How far do we have to go? If we make a best effort to determine the posible author and how long ago he deceased it should sufficient? If you go back in time, you see that most known fotografers have protected their work. No problem there. There are however a lot off fotos, where it is imposible to know the author. (also a lot of publications that bougth te picture rigths and dont mention the author) If the original negatives no longer exists it becomes very dificult to prove that some ancestor took the picture and you have the rigths. It would be easy to make a false claim that your granddad took some picture. Doesnt the counterparty have to produce some proof? It becomes so theoretical (the family mostly never knows that pictures was his, except if was a family picture of course). In legal terms there no such thing as 100% safety. This is going to far from common and moral sense. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- We shouldn't go far at all. If we haven't got proof an image is free, we shouldn't accept it. Commons is meant as a database of free images, not of unprovenly unfree images. Also, it is morally most problematic to infringe on peoples' rights on the basis that they will not be able to defend themselves. --Wikipeder (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- When do we apply {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} then? And is there a way to verify that someone has claimed rigths for a picture? How can you ever prove that there has been no disclosure of the authors name in the 70 years? To prove an absence is legally imposible, because you would have to check every posible publication. This tag has been created and approved by the wiki community, with implicit approval of the legal arguments. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as you just described there is a very severe problem in applying {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I am no friend of this notoriously speculative tag at all. --Wikipeder (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is the law. You want to abolish it, and introduce perpetual copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as you just described there is a very severe problem in applying {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I am no friend of this notoriously speculative tag at all. --Wikipeder (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- When do we apply {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} then? And is there a way to verify that someone has claimed rigths for a picture? How can you ever prove that there has been no disclosure of the authors name in the 70 years? To prove an absence is legally imposible, because you would have to check every posible publication. This tag has been created and approved by the wiki community, with implicit approval of the legal arguments. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- We shouldn't go far at all. If we haven't got proof an image is free, we shouldn't accept it. Commons is meant as a database of free images, not of unprovenly unfree images. Also, it is morally most problematic to infringe on peoples' rights on the basis that they will not be able to defend themselves. --Wikipeder (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's just simply the legal situation, if we like it or not. „Possibly PD“ is not a free licence. --Wikipeder (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, nothing will satisfy Martin H. His reasoning would make photos unfree for about 150 years (maybe for 180 years to be on the safe side), unless there is incontrovertable proof that the attribution to a photographer who has been certifiably dead for more than 70 years is absolutely correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That not makes the 1) image first published in the book, it was maybe published before with author disclosure 2) photographers identity not publicly disclosed as the wish of that photographer, not as the mistake of that book author. In fact: You dont have any evidences that this image was published anonymously or pseudonymously by its author. --Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- The caption of this photo in von Mantey's book clearly does not give the name of the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, how can you say "no author disclosure" - whats your source? Whats your evidences? --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, User:Wikipeder had changed that too, in this rather destructive edit. I will change it back to "unknown". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- If this reasoning is followed, schools couldnt hire teachers because there is no "absolute" certainty that they are not pedofiles. There could always be some undiscovered evidence lying around. In the application of the law, there is the rule that every reasonable effort should be made to prove that there is no evidence, but the law doesnt demand the imposible.
- The European law is introduced just to prevent abusive use of copyrigth. Wikipeder only approaches it from the "victim" side. I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy with someone who
- discovers that his granddad has a taken picture, never published it under his name or revealed it.
- Then tries to blackmail a publishing company to get some money out of it. The photographer or his family has had 70 years to take action. Some people even deliberatly wait until it is published before making a claim, so they can get more money out of it.
- The general public has also an interest that historic pictures become available. The endless copyrigths of anonymous photographers, just prevents these pictures ever becoming available, because no publisher wants to take a risk. There is a balance of interest there. We could endlesly debate the issue, but it should be discussed in a more general forum. But before that we should check wat the arguments where at the time of the approval of the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and what the wikipedia policy is in this matter. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The European law is introduced just to prevent abusive use of copyrigth. Wikipeder only approaches it from the "victim" side. I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy with someone who
Delete, zombie, has been deleted before. No prool of PD status: No proof that author whom uploader named is dead for more than 70 years. No record of detailed research that authorship has never ever been disclosed. --Wikipeder (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader named de:Eberhard von Mantey. He died 1940, but he was a naval historian, not a photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: the deleted was a different image tagged as pd-old without any evidence of author. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: The schip was destroyed at the end of world war I. This picture must be taken before that. So the picture is at least nearly 100 years old. The photographer is certainly dead. As this is an aerial picture I strongly suspect this is an official foto taken on demand. (There were not many airplanes flying around at that time)Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Even though the picture must have been taken prior to 1919, we have no evidence that it was published anywhere prior to 1926. The status of the picture depends on who is considered the author, von Mantey, or someone else. If the author is someone other than von Mantey, then the image is PD in Germany as it would have entered the public domain on 1/1/1997 (the first January 1 which was more than 70 years after anonymous publishing since the author's name is not listed on the photo). However, if von Mantey is considered the author, then the image will not become PD in Germany until Jan 1 of next year (1/1/2011) which would be the Jan 1 after 70 years pma. Either way, it would not enter PD in the US until 1/1/2022, or the Jan 1 after 95 years post publishing since it was not PD in Germany on 1/1/1996. Therefore, I am deleting the image, and recommending that on 1/1/2011, it be restored and tagged as {{PD-old-70}}{{Not-PD-US-URAA}} -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Restored, per Avi notes. --Dereckson (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that author dead for more than 70 years + not PD in US Wikipeder (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's anonymous. PD in the US is a red herring; there are several thousand files that should be deleted in bulk if that is to be used as a deletion reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept as per above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The permission only grants rights to Vedran Vrhovac to use and modify the image, and gives no explicit license. Proper permission should be sent to OTRS giving anyone the rights to use and modify the image, under the terms of a specific license. –Tryphon☂ 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The permission pasted on the image page says nothing about derivative works; a more formal permission should be sent to OTRS, specifying a license explicitly. –Tryphon☂ 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Permission says "He is allowed to modify my photos but attribution is required." so I think it allows derivative works. But I agree that permission should be send to OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- "He is allowed", yes, but what about the rest of the world? Are they allowed to make derivative works too? –Tryphon☂ 12:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Damn you have many questions ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- "He is allowed", yes, but what about the rest of the world? Are they allowed to make derivative works too? –Tryphon☂ 12:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Incomplete licensure (only for one person). -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If one point to specified link and then to "How to obtain copies of this item" on specified website, he/she will see message: "The Library of Congress generally does not own rights to material in its collections and, therefore, cannot grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute the material." Therefore this image is not free. Jaroslavleff (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Serebr (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Frivolous nominations for deletion like this are a favorite game of Wiki vandals, since they are so wonderfully effective and destructive for the project. All users who nominated the image for deletion or who voted for it were previously blocked indefinitely on Russian Wiki.—contra_ventum (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This also fails {{PD-Russia-2008}} because it was photographed during the Great Patriotic War. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, relicense with {{PD-Russia-2008}}. Image source here: [10]. Author is unknown, the work was published before 1943. If the work was originally published anonymously or under the pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication, it is in public domain. --Grebenkov (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- The image date itself was listed as "1942?" and supposedly done by the UN office in New York (mind you the UN did not exist in 1942." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1942 is before 1943. If the photo was published in US — then {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. --Grebenkov (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, then it is 95 years after publication. 1942 and 1944 is well more than 30 days. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't proved that this photograph has ever been published (not created) outside the US. --Grebenkov (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, then it is 95 years after publication. 1942 and 1944 is well more than 30 days. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1942 is before 1943. If the photo was published in US — then {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. --Grebenkov (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- The image date itself was listed as "1942?" and supposedly done by the UN office in New York (mind you the UN did not exist in 1942." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- keep because the library of congress claims it was made by the Office of War Information, which was a U.S government agency, I am willing to accept it could under russian copyright if you provide some evidence that it was in fact taken by a soviet photographer. The disclaimer the nominator mentions is in fact a generic disclaimer linked from all files on the LoC website Movieevery (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Image source: United Nations Information Office, New York. [11] It is NOT USA governiment work! This image used in photoshopping STALIN+HITLER but it is not in Public Domain for this falsifications and damage for history. 178.176.174.167 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- the Library of Congress 'notes' section indicates it was made by the 'Office of War Information. Overseas Picture Division' and later transferred to the 'United Nations Information Office, New York.' Movieevery (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Image source: United Nations Information Office, New York. [11] It is NOT USA governiment work! This image used in photoshopping STALIN+HITLER but it is not in Public Domain for this falsifications and damage for history. 178.176.174.167 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This was surely not created by the Office of War Information, but used by them for intelligence purposes. This is a Russian work. Delete if you cannot establish a good Russian source (date!) that back ups PD-Russia-2008. --Polarlys (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Library of Congress says "Image source: United Nations Information Office, New York. (Impossible since the UN was not founded until 1945)". It was "Transfer; United States. Office of War Information. Overseas Picture Division. Washington Division; 1944." So it was kept in a US Government office since 1944 but it still does not say it was created by the US at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The United Nations Information Office was somewhat of a precursor to the United Nations, and existed from 1942 to 1945 (see here). It had a different name from 1940-1942, the Inter-Allied Information Center. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Library of Congress says "Image source: United Nations Information Office, New York. (Impossible since the UN was not founded until 1945)". It was "Transfer; United States. Office of War Information. Overseas Picture Division. Washington Division; 1944." So it was kept in a US Government office since 1944 but it still does not say it was created by the US at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- This was surely not created by the Office of War Information, but used by them for intelligence purposes. This is a Russian work. Delete if you cannot establish a good Russian source (date!) that back ups PD-Russia-2008. --Polarlys (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If deleted, this derivative work should be deleted too. –Tryphon☂ 23:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- All I am saying that if it was a soviet made portrait a little evidence would help, the U.S gov in fact does have other pictures of Stalin for example http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=976484 Coasttrip (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image was first published in the US. Either it is a US work owned by US government or it was created ca 1942 by a Soviet author whose name had not become known 50 years after the image was published. In both cases it is free. contra_ventum (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with the users above. JJ Georges (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This is definitely NOT the work of the FSA/OWI -- those photos are of U.S. subjects only by named FSA/OWI photographers. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/071_fsab.html explains, "the FSA occasionally and the OWI frequently bought or otherwise obtained some photographs from other sources", so that appears to be the case here. However, because the LOC info page does not say, "Rights status not evaluated" or anything like that, and because you can download the entire 17MB TIFF, that indicates the LOC believes it to be public domain, at least within the U.S. For that reason, we may have to move this to en-WP. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Kalki (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is no indication of the name of the author of this photograph (e.g. The image has been used in multiple countries on book covers and in articles without reference to any author or copyright holder) and it is more than 50 years after its publication, so the image should be considered PD in Russia. It became PD in Russia at the latest 1994, making it PD in the home country in 1996, so it is PD in the US as well. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
