Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/07
 |
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}
Contains Google copyrighted content, which could be removed. Eusebius (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, yes User:Billinghurst has just told me about that; I'm in the process of fixing it up. Can we hold off on deleting it until tomorrow? I'd be most grateful. :-) Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I've sorted it, and removed the delete notice (was that right? or should someone else do that?). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 11:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a speedy deletion process, you have at least 7 days. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see your latest message. Please leave it to the closing admin to remove deletion request tags. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a speedy deletion process, you have at least 7 days. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Now ok. Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is the painter, where is he from and when did he die? Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Frederic Remington, of New York, who died in 1909. Picture painted 1905-1906, Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, in public domain (prior to 1924)Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, image info improved. --Eusebius (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Private image, used in deleted self promo page, wrong name --Kattenkruid (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete delete this version - better (but smaller) version is there. Maybe for a user page. Deletion request shortly after the upload must be handled with care. Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
(reason for deletion) --Srvban (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Justass (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in France; request made by uploader. Havang(nl) (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
-2010-03-07T17:42:00.000Z-File:Atur_vitrail_moderne.JPG){kind=link}
Speedied. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
source states "При использовании материалов ссылка на сайт обязательна"; permission given as unknown Man vyi (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
dubious source; no permission Man vyi (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Fair use like in the english wikipedia en:File:PartTimePaltitle.jpg is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
source given as www.bing.com; no permission Man vyi (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader maybe thought that uploading this image for ru.wp article ru:Cat Fishin' would be ok and similar as en:File:Catfishing1.jpg in the en.wp article en:Cat Fishin'... but no, it is not. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, bad quality Amada44 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - the commons are not a collection of strange "Video art" - other images of this user are similar Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal picture Amada44 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
promotional picture for a comedian with unknown notability, copyrights? (derivative work) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unused promotional image - out of scope, small Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private foto - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
strange selfpromotion - unused, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am no longer using Wikipedia and would like my picture to be deleted. Keito (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no real need for a photo of a former Wikipedian. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues: Image is a publicity shot for a Taiwan drama serial. I doubt the contributor holds the rights to it. --Samanthalee (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues: Image is a publicity shot for a Taiwan drama serial. I doubt the contributor holds the rights to it. Samanthalee (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues: Image is a publicity shot for a Taiwan drama serial. Samanthalee (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment reason for deletion not evident - maybe the drama serial has an article? (or will get one) Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed the drama serial has an article in several languages. I doubt the contributor holds the rights to it. Can we claim "fair-use"? Samanthalee (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No fair use on Commons. Obvious copyvio. Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues: Image is a publicity shot for a Taiwan drama serial. I doubt the contributor holds the rights to it. Samanthalee (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
taken from a TV-Screen - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused badge - nearly a joke - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private foto - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
date , author , source - all the same: "sasa" - unidentified bridge and lake - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a personal pic, unused. Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - bad quality, per nom. Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - only edit of this user, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, useless, no encyclopedic value, and so on Frédéric (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to keep it Noncommercial-No Derivative, but moderator sad it's not allowed here Artoodetoo2000 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to keep it Noncommercial-No Derivative, but moderator sad it's not allowed here Artoodetoo2000 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, unused Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, only edit Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Elekhh (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused drawing - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
this is a screenshot of a Wikipedia Italia page uploaded in order to explain a problem to an administrator. If it is a not allowed use of Commons, the page can be deleted; this is my opinion. Obviously, the file is not used by any Wikipedia worldwide. --Decio Mure (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- File seems fine copyright wise, if the pictures have free licenses. But if the file is no longer in use then it should go. -Nard the Bard 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes copyright is OK, but what about using Commons as a repository of screenshots in order to discuss work-in-progress problems about pages designing? And now, the problem is solved, and we still have the screenshot on commons... to serve what purpose? --Decio Mure (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the file is in use in a wiki talk page then putting it on Commons is not a problem, that's Commons' job, to host images for wikis. Because it is not currently in use though it serves no further purpose. -Nard the Bard 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
no longer in use Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad image quality. Educational use not possible. High Contrast (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Elekhh (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Reason: this is non free logo, ist not PD-textlogo and D-shape. NeuroWikiTyk (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep I'd rather say this is PD-textlogo. Just because there are a few colors doesn't make it copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This logo is registered trademark so its not free image. NeuroWikiTyk (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Trademarks. Being subject to trademark has nothing to do with copyright and only copyright is relevant for images on commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per PaterMcFly, as I always say this. People don't even give a damn to read the files descriptions. Prefers going paranoic and delete everthing they don't understand. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- May ask Capcom whether this logo is free? NeuroWikiTyk (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not necessary (and useless, as they will incorrectly say "no"). There are works (among these, simple logos such as this one) that cannot be protected by copyright. It doesn't mean you can use them for anything you like, but you may distribute them at will. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- May ask Capcom whether this logo is free? NeuroWikiTyk (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, ineligible for copyright. Blurpeace 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
unused. probably out of scope? Amada44 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Issues of scope and privacy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
private picture Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
cyber-cafe in a small town in southern france - unused and not really usable, too small Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Elekhh (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This institution was created in 1922. Postcard is therefore too recent to be automatically PD-old Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is no date on the postcard. I can not be sure that this material is old enough. Though I'm sure that this postcard has been taken before 1950 since a new building has been build in front of it. --Guy Courtois (d) 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Merci de participer sur la page de discussion prévue à cet effet. Une photographie prise en 1950 ne peut mathématiquement pas être dans le domaine public, puisqu'il faut que l'auteur en soit mort avant 1939. --Eusebius (d) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Elle date d'avant 1950, mais effectivement vous avez raison, il n'y a aucune certitude sur cette date qui prouve qu'elle soit bien suffisamment vieille. --82.232.108.34 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Suis ok pour l'effacer si besoin, si qq d'autre ne peut pas prouver qu'elle est bien libre de droit. Désolé encore pour l'erreur. --82.232.108.34 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Merci de participer sur la page de discussion prévue à cet effet. Une photographie prise en 1950 ne peut mathématiquement pas être dans le domaine public, puisqu'il faut que l'auteur en soit mort avant 1939. --Eusebius (d) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
musician of unclear notability, unused, very bad quality; Jahobr (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. no eductaional value. Elekhh (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense British Empire maps
[edit]- File:British Empire Anachronous 4.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:British Empire Anachronous 4a.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:British Empire Anachronous 7.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:British Empire Anachronous 8.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Decline-British Empire.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:British Empire.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:20080126171027!BlankMap-World.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Britania.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ImperioBritanico.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images are all nonsense maps of the British Empire, four of which are duplicates of the same idea. Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as mere innacurate variations of the more detailed and correct File:The British Empire.png, and not used relevantly. The Ogre (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Ogre. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Several are in use in talk page archives. Mark the images as deprecated or wrong or change their category if you must but it is our job to serve images to our member projects and we cannot delete files in use. Maybe somebody wants to read those archived discussions. -Nard the Bard 07:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- These images, for the most part were used in talk pages in discussions about their respective inaccuracy, as such they are forgotten experiments or deprecated in their use, all replaced by File:The British Empire.png. Their present use is not relevant and does not serve an educacional purpose, since those discussions lead to their demise. Also ir should be noted that some editors might not be aware of former discussion and might be tempted to use them to illustrate the British Empire (as can be seen here in a total misreading of the map; and my correction). Further still, and correct me if I'm wrong Red Hat, but maps like File:British Empire Anachronous 8.png were originally uploaded by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, who is the author of the detailed File:The British Empire.png, which replaced all others. The Ogre (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
DeleteThese maps have been demised, and they are not in use, finally they have been corrected and fixed in aforementioned map, and therefore they fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose.Trasamundo (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept the majority and deleted one, per Nard the Bard (talk · contribs). Restating what Nard had said, we have a duty to illustrate archives as part of our pursuit towards "editorial transparency". Please place {{Superseded}} templates on the obsolete diagrams. Blurpeace 02:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Rehman.hazrat
[edit]- File:AZRAT 1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:HAZRAT 700008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:REHMAN 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:REHMANHAZRAT 02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:World intelligent person 700008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:World beautiful person 02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:World most wanted person 1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rehman hazrat best freind 1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The images of User:Rehman.hazrat are mostly self portraits and other personal pictures with very strange names (eg. World intelligent person 700008, World beautiful person 02, World most wanted person, Rehman hazrat best freind 1) and dubious description text:(~WE LISTEN TO YOU~). 3 of his images have a speedy, I thing the rest should go too.
Amada44 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - all are strange and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Lolipop123
[edit]- File:Kream.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Horizons grafitti.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Barcelona disney resort logo.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mickeymoouse.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cosmo jets.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Splash mountain seasons.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:New epcot logo seas.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:New epcot logo land.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:New epcot logo imagination.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:New epcot logo test track.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Horizons.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Marvels of the arts.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Universe of energy.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Innoventions logo.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Spaceship Earth Logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pigicecream.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dlhmap.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All out of scope according to me. Children drawings, paint art, etc. Some are also DW. Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - all out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a movie screenshot from the 1951 film "One Summer of Happiness". It is not a "image of the press" nor is it public domain. The copyright of the film is owned by the heirs of Volodja Semitjov and the heirs of Arne Mattsson and will be public domain in 2066. The photo was taken by cinematographer Göran Strindberg, who died in 1991. Thuresson (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep While one may have to wait until 2066 to sell or show the movie without paying royalties, this still photo is not a movie. It is a publicity photo. It is free according to {{PD-Sweden}} as a "fotografisk bild". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The file does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States. Which is required, unless some other free (but not public domain) license applies.--Rockfang (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unsupported assertion. Nothing indicates that this photo was copyrighted in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
per Pieter Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
there is no content, only white noise Frédéric (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Source says: "No part of this work may be used for commercial purposes without the written permission of the authors." Jay32183 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
unnotabel music group - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used and no requests to keep it. MGA73 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.nato.int/kfor/media/photos/2005/photo_of_the_week/index2005.htm : "PD-USGov-DOS" does not apply because this photograph is no work of a United States Department of State employee High Contrast (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is there some special licence for NATO? --Mladifilozof (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, NATO images are usually not published under a free licence. --High Contrast (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt the author of the original work is employed by the US department of State. Eusebius (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The license applies to the photo, not to the original work.--Mladifilozof (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)--Mladifilozof (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Asuming that drawing is not a work of art. MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The same as Miracle Frooties Large.jpg, name clashes with file on en.wp AlexanderKlink (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Miracle Frooties Large.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hochlader ist nicht mehr bei Flickr aktiv, Einwilligung fraglich Kürschner (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. "16:31, 31 March 2010 Flominator (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Innocence Smiling Loretta.jpg" (uploader was banned on flickr)" MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
unused "life around a stone" - no real educational value, out of scope, wrong description ("life") Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The words use by Cholo Aleman to motivate deletion of the image confuse me. The inability of Cholo and the lack of attention by anyone else in attempting to describe the image does not mean it has no real educational value. Please explain so that the Wiki Community can be educated. Were the "crumbs" of sand sprinkled there by fairies? Seems to me it was done by some living creature. What does out of scope mean? Has the scope of Wikipedi been limited recently? Gregorydavid (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in scope. -Nard the Bard 04:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In scope. If description is wrong then change it. If name is wrong suggest {{Rename}}. MGA73 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
unreadable document, unused - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a letter from the US Secretary of State to the Japanese Emperor about some islands, can't quite make out what it says. If the document is authentic then it is very much in scope. -Nard the Bard 04:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- To be properly categorised and to be kept. Julo (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept - legible with a little effort, historic diplomatic document. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
no info provided about author; possible copyright violation, seems to be scanned from a book; no usage on any wiki --Decio Mure (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
unused lessons table in hebrew - out of scope (unless somebody can explain the contrary) 92.75.47.146 21:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment my DR, outlogged for unknown reasons Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused; no description in infobox, but self-descriptory. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Sole contribution by uploader. License is almost certainly wrong. It is possible that this is PD-Art, though, judging by subject matter and style. Does anyone know who Joan Cons (presumably a Catalan name) would be? If that's a known artist who died long enough ago, then this can be salvaged. Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. It COULD be old enough but with no information at all we can't know. Can be undeleted if someone provides relevant information. MGA73 (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced; no info on artist nor date to establish copyright status. Imaged had been tagged {{Nsd}}, but I'm changing this to a deletion request in hopes someone might be able to recognize the image or track down information. The image is very widely used in various Wikimedia projects. It LOOKS like a Renaissance era fresco. If it can be shown to be old enough to be PD it can be kept. --Infrogmation (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- de:Project:Auskunft/Archiv/2009/Woche_11#Kuenstler_gesucht did not suceed --217.228.126.86 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- By whom was this famous painting with all the famous people on it, sitting on the stairs in front of such a marble bow? Rembrandt? --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean category:The School of Athens? That is Raphael. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Given the source (a Bible related blog) such a painting could even be from a modern religious book such as published by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of their art looks and feels the same as Renaissance art. -Nard the Bard 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- But the en:craquelure indicates that this is probably old; also its use here may indicate that this is a known painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- The parody image may well have simply been taken from Wikipedia, as it was the first image illustrating the en:W:Judas article. Infrogmation (talk)
- But the en:craquelure indicates that this is probably old; also its use here may indicate that this is a known painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- By whom was this famous painting with all the famous people on it, sitting on the stairs in front of such a marble bow? Rembrandt? --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Still unsourced; no evidence presented to demonstrate it isn't a modern work imitating old art styles. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Image claims self-made however image contains parts which are not Freely licensed and thusly image can only be used under fair-use, for example the Obama photo is a cropped version of this image which is All Rights Reserved. OverlordQ (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree - If something's all rights reserved, then it's inclusion in this is inappropriate. However, I do think that this file could actually be useful and contribute to discussion. Further, useage of the "Cowboy Obama" picture makes it look amateurish; why not use his official portrait? Also, I'd remove Queen Elizabeth and Emperor Akihito, as I don't think they're relevant to the topic at hand.211.182.143.3 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have listed this file for speedy deletion on the grounds that the Obama photo is copyrighted by the Texas Observer. - Gump Stump (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep These are wine awards at an exhibition. "Novyj Svit" winery --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- What does make the medals free of rights? --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Medal has inscription in Russian. Awards not copyrighted in Russia and in Ukraine --George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference for that, do we have a license tag for that? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think, PD-UA-exempt. It is wine exhibition in Ukraine, Crimea. But this photo shown not only one medal, it is a composition. So, copyright info in photo description is correct IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unless the award is a governmental one, PD-UA-exempt does not seem to apply. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you learn the subject, you`d know that it is 100% state winery.
- It is an award issued by a company owned by the state. It is not an award issued by the government. Please sign your posts. --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you learn the subject, you`d know that it is 100% state winery.
- Unless the award is a governmental one, PD-UA-exempt does not seem to apply. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think, PD-UA-exempt. It is wine exhibition in Ukraine, Crimea. But this photo shown not only one medal, it is a composition. So, copyright info in photo description is correct IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference for that, do we have a license tag for that? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Medal has inscription in Russian. Awards not copyrighted in Russia and in Ukraine --George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- In a real life in Ukraine in this case problems with the copyright are not available. Medal is very simple. Portrait of the wine maker Leo Golitsyn (1845 - 1915) and a simple text on a circle. The probability of claims under the copyright to Commons equals 0 %. This photo used in Wiki, its removal will worsen article. I think that the photo should be kept. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- The portrait is largely over any creativity threshold for copyright eligibility. Commons is not a repository of media which are safe to use because nobody would complain, it is a repository of freely licensed media. Using unfree images on a Wikipedia, when outside fair use policies, is against the very aim of the Wikimedia projects, and it doesn't help. I am sure you understand that. --Eusebius (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I still think that it is necessary to keep this photo. I will try to explain.
- 1. An example. The car design is protected by the copyright, however a photo with car is the copyright of the photographer. We have a similar case here. It is not the exact drawing, it is already author's photo, a composition with this medal.
- 2. Medal is derivative work too, as the author cannot be personally familiar with Golitsyn.
- 3. I do not consider this medal as product of high art, it is mediocre enough work for applied use as award.
Bien amicalement --George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I will not answer 1, for I have never understood why photographs of recent cars weren't DW. 2: yes, the medal is a derivative, and the photograph is a DW of a DW. 3: copyright is independent of artistic merit. --Eusebius (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
File:LaRosa_Hamilton_diResta_Spengeler_2007_amk.jpg - For example only. FedEx, Mercedes-Benz, Mobil-1, BOSS, Vodafone... All it is non-free copyrighted logo. Derivative work like this can be found in some uploaded photos.
File:DTM_Mercedes_w204_diResta_amk.jpg Copyrighted tuning car with non-free copyrighted logo Bosch, AMG, Dunlop.
File:Skinner_knife.jpg Copyrighted design too?
File:Libres comme l'art rue de l'arbalète B.jpg This graffiti is work of art?
File:Libres comme l'art rue de l'arbalète A.jpg This too?
My thought such: the rule of derivative work should be applied cautiously. Otherwise it is necessary to delete almost all files. :((( --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look at COM:DM (for your first three examples) and COM:CB#Graffiti (may or may not be applicable to the last two). It does not answer everything but provides some guidelines for borderline cases. --Eusebius (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You for information about DM and Graffiti. I did not know it earlier. However I had in view of not logo on a knife, all knife entirely. It is really modern design. And it is made much better, than this medal. Medal is borderline case IMO. I hope, I have not tired You with this dispute? However both of us have good resolves for Commons --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just feel bad for the admin who will have to close this case :-) --Eusebius (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You for information about DM and Graffiti. I did not know it earlier. However I had in view of not logo on a knife, all knife entirely. It is really modern design. And it is made much better, than this medal. Medal is borderline case IMO. I hope, I have not tired You with this dispute? However both of us have good resolves for Commons --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I strongly doubt {{Own}} work. Uploader only has a few uploads and all of them look questionable or doubtful. Wknight94 talk 11:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I used {{Own}} coz it seemed the easiest way. The truth is that I participated in a press-tour to the event as a journalist and they gave a disk with fotoes for each journalist to use in their medias. I didn`t know what license to put. But if the plant give me this foto to publish, I can publish it, no? --pozytyv (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2010 (Kyiv time)
- Only according to the permission they gave you. You probably have a permission to publish this photo in media, you certainly don't have the right to release it under a free license, therefore authorizing anyone to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Only the copyright holders (originally the photographer) can do that, and we need a written permission from them. Thanks a lot for this precision about the situation though, it helps a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader admits upload is not really {{Own}}. Wknight94 talk 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is the uploader's own work. Among other things, that would place the user at over 90 years old. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous old photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a good reason for delete. /Cpt.Muji (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment old photo, but no source. Not keep the image in this dreadful condition. So missing source and author information, if this is not corrected it must go. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that image is in the PD.--Trixt (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Advertisment. This image was used on de:Benutzer:Reisetourer. --Euku:⇄ 09:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in France — images of buildings that aren't just utilitarian can only be reproduced with permission of the designer of the building, unless he died before 1939. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - There are fifteen pictures in this category and some hundreds more showing the various buildings of the Paris Disneyland. It is my conviction that the French FOP law does not apply there and, to my knowledge, the issue was never raised concerning all other pictures.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm assuming that Disney;and is a post-WW2 thing, in which case they're copyvios if they show non-utilitarian architecture. We deleted a lot of photos from some Dutch/Belgian miniature village a while back with the same justification - just because the issue has never been raised before doesn't mean it isn't illegal. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete French law and case law as quoted at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France is very clear. And these are certainly "original". . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Question -- Are they really "original"? Remember that they are based on Disney's creations and drawings. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - originality here I think means not a big box with windows. If you're going to say that buildings based on Disney aren't original, then nor is the Centre Pompidou, as it's based on a normal building, only inside out. The Millau viaduct isn't original because it's based on a normal bridge, just bigger. They're original, so I stick to my delete vote. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted swedish CoA. Deletion request since the Derivative template was remove with reference to FoP, which I don't believe is applicable. Lokal_Profil 15:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content. Table could be easily integrated in article. Avron (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content. Table could be easily integrated in article. Avron (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but it's in use, so just deleting would be stupid. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked the corresponding user on french wikipedia [1]--Avron (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It may be deleted, but not before the current usage has been replaced with wiki format techniques. If the file is deleted now, the content wouldn't be available for making such a table Belgrano (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content. Table could be easily integrated in article. Avron (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- In use, so replace first, then delete. Not the other way round. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It may be deleted, but not before the current usage has been replaced with wiki format techniques. If the file is deleted now, the content wouldn't be available for making such a table Belgrano (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
DW of a logo. How old is the logo? Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This logo is from a diecast model that is from about 1990.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think the design is older than the object. Do you have any idea about that? --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The complexity of the logo does not make it ineligible for copyright; and there's no info about the copyright of the logo itself Belgrano (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
DW of a logo. How old is the logo? Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This was off a Brumm box from the early 1980s.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- But maybe the logo of the company is older than the box? --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The complexity of the logo does not make it ineligible for copyright; and there's no info about the copyright of the logo itself Belgrano (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Image for the press. Usually says "free use", but not in the "free use for everything" context grillo (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright holder says "free use", period. And, as you know, "fri" in Swedish means both free as in freedom and free as in free lunch. No restrictions whatsoever are stated on the page where the image is taken from, so if the copyright holder minds (which I doubt that he does) he would never stand a chance in court. Armigo (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Free images that are for the press are usually only free for usage in the press, and nothing else. Since you probably understand Swedish, also see sv:Wikipedia:BF#Pressbilder. See also the introduction text at Commons:Licensing. Just stating on a web site that the images can be used freely by the press (or by anyone else for that matter), isn't enough. /grillo (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the copyright holders have stated that the image is free then that's their statement and that's what they have to stick to. It is a strange notion that it should be our duty to start emailing people encouraging them to be more restrictive, which happened in a recent similar case. If someone in retrospect regrets releasing an image it is unfortunate for them but it is simply not our problem, and no court would blame us for it. Armigo (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Free images that are for the press are usually only free for usage in the press, and nothing else. Since you probably understand Swedish, also see sv:Wikipedia:BF#Pressbilder. See also the introduction text at Commons:Licensing. Just stating on a web site that the images can be used freely by the press (or by anyone else for that matter), isn't enough. /grillo (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Publishers put these images on their web sites because they want anybody to use them. Not just press, but also blogs, teachers, students, etcetera. Without needing to ask permission. That is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't think we can assume that they also want people to edit them and sell them. /grillo (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Use in the press is commercial use, that is what such images are for. And there is no prohibition against cropping, etcetera. The common-sense restrictions in {{Personality rights}} are good enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't think we can assume that they also want people to edit them and sell them. /grillo (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, "free use" is not explicit enough. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Same here:
- File:AMT70Torino.jpg Shows example of coaster model. I think this one should be removed. I can use other non-copyright photos of my own.
- File:SMP59Corvette.jpg Shows (with below) example of transition from SMP to AMT.
- File:AMT59Mercury.jpg Same as above.
- File:AMT57TBird.jpg Show example of instructions for a styling model not seen on model itself.
- File:Solido1975.jpg Catalog appearances are important too. Since this has the date and the copyright is "registered" it should be romoved.
- File:MPCCougar.jpg What did MPC kits look like? This is an example. (Which should be removed).
- File:SchucoPiccoloBus.jpg German Shuco's packaging was quite colorful with or without bus.
- File:LoneStarBus.jpg Packaging here shows competition with other brands like Corgi and Dinky.
- File:SchucoMercedesBus.jpg No just the bus alone, but what did it look like on the shelf? Well, there is not other way to get a picture of this bus except within the package because I'm not taking it out!
- File:Husky Auto City BMW.jpg Shows what Huskies looked like after purchased by Mattel !
- File:Politoys Iso Rivolta.jpg Politoys packaging is important - and with model. Note here that the boxes don't carry any particular logo, photo, or script that appears copyrighted. I think this one could be safely removed from this list. I don't think there is copyright violation here.
- File:Politoys M-series brochure.jpg M brochure was simplistic and to the point compare to Solido 1975, but except for the APS, there is not a logo or particular script. I think this falls in the same category as the Iso Rivolta.
I didn't nominate the pictures where the subject is the model itself, not an illustration. --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the requests to delete this (these) pictures. In collection of diecast and other model cars the packaging is just as important as the model itself, sometimes the packaging is more important. A car in the original package is worth much more than the car itself. Sometimes the packaging shows a photograph of the car which makes the subject even more intriguing. Collectors want to know what the packaging looked like, not just the model itself. How models have been packaged over time shows a lot about industry, tastes, and values in different time periods. You'll notice these pictures usually show the car and the package.
- What if I wanted to start a Wiki site on advertising, but couldn't show any of the ads at all from different periods (of course within permits of 'fair use')? It would not make any sense.
- Not many model cars, especially in 1:43 and 1:24 scale from Europe use photographs for the packaging so it makes the toy/model very interesting for the Wikipedia entries for which these pictures are being used. They are extremely instructive. The same goes for pictures of old toy catalogs and brochures. Of course, if these are deemed against copyright law, I would understand, but deleting them would defeat the purpose of many of the articles they adjoin - and showing only the cars themselves in not nearly as interesting or explanatory. See my rationale
belowabove for each picture. - --Cstevencampbell (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC) note: this answer was moved from the top of the discussion to the bottom, so the comments are of course above now.
- Steven, have you read the linked page COM:DW? This are blatant derivatives of non-free product packaging. Almost eligible for speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- P.s, as you mention "within permits of 'fair use'" - fair use is absolutely not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Steven, have you read the linked page COM:DW? This are blatant derivatives of non-free product packaging. Almost eligible for speedy
OK, I understand the derivative idea. Polistil has been out of business though since 1993 - I don't know who owns the copyright.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note my comments about photos above revised today.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Many different cases, difficult to see what the problem is. Was anything nominated copyrighted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is the same problem for all nominated pictures: they are derivative works of illustrations which are copyrightable and for which we have no reason to think that they are free of rights. Comments added by the uploader are related to the educational value of the files, not to copyright issues. --Eusebius (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ones that I looked at seemed very {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right then, there are different issues, based on different source countries... --Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ones that I looked at seemed very {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is the same problem for all nominated pictures: they are derivative works of illustrations which are copyrightable and for which we have no reason to think that they are free of rights. Comments added by the uploader are related to the educational value of the files, not to copyright issues. --Eusebius (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteThey all appear to be copyvio, subject to the possibility that there was no notice on the USA examples. I find that hard to believe, though. BTW, the (R) on File:Solido1975.jpg refers to the fact that the trademark was registered (1969, expired, unrenewed 1990), not the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deletions should not be done based on what someone finds hard to believe. Fact is that noone here has found a (c) mark anywhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Diego Grez return fire 18:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept those that are {{PD-US-no notice}}, deleted the others (this includes potential PD-US-no notice; but no date was given). Kameraad Pjotr 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Have decided that Wikipedia is not the place for the discussion of toy brands and their packaging since the packaging is so important to understanding how the companies presented themselves and competed with one another. Pictures of the models without packaging just doesn't portray enough information about the companies marketing audiences and goals. Also, it seems the deletion of pictures in doubt was done so capriciously - when no one really knew if they were in copyright violation or not, including myself. So, in my opinion, the proper place for this venue and its discussion is in publishing books or articles in professionally edited outlets where copyrights can be appropriately pursued. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons any longer, as it is counterproductive to what needs to be shown in complete encyclopedia entries that could give exceptionally good ideas as to what the companies and their products were really like. That simply cannot be done here. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
