Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/17
 |
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}
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
private unused group foto - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete out of scope Gnangarra 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
no license, small, advertisement of a company, unused Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- deleted unlicensed since Jan 2009 Gnangarra 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image from Alaska 2008 - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Article in the en-wiki was deleted: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter William Wade. Trycatch (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)- Delete out of scope Gnangarra 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete not a terribly notable handball team in a rather blurry picture. --Simonxag (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
useless image with a strange description (should be some kind of art??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete probable screen shot and copyright violation. Gnangarra 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom & quite possibly containing several copyvios. --Simonxag (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete tiny & useless --Simonxag (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This may well be a private moment and using the image to illustrate a v-sign might violate the subjects' right to privacy --Simonxag (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The architect of this building is alive, and there is no freedom of panorama in France. Croquant (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
unused, very strange description Amada44 (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete permision "rrrrrrrr" ???? --Simonxag (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio of "All star superman" comic. --Simonxag (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused persoanl image Amada44 (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom & useless --Simonxag (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom & looks like a copyvio --Simonxag (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and probable copyvio. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons scope, trying to use Commons to promotionate herself [1] --by Màñü飆¹5 (m†¹5™) 08:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dona_Maria2.jpg&diff=36545462&oldid=36545370){kind=link}
Delete Clearly uses copyrighted material. Needs OTRS permission. --Simonxag (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't match duplicate enwiki entry which is tagged as non-free anyway Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete This needs OTRS permission from the painter. --Simonxag (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Tagged as non-freee on en-wiki Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, a good example of {{PD-textlogo}}. Tagging at en:wp is clearly wrong. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep, agree to Nyttend. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, agree also, shows simple shapes and text. Salavat (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
(No sensible content. There seems to be no 'educational' use.) --91.47.73.163 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any problem with it. --GaAs11671 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per GaAs. Trycatch (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Support It's unused.--Oneiros (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate Tagged as non-free (and missing rationale) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Put in Fair Use rationale. Perhaps it is being deleted because it is a duplicate, don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Coldwell (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free. It is there: en:File:Keedoozle 1949 supply room.jpg. --GaAs11671 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (Note: I tagged it with missing permission already on 15 February). If the publisher fulfilled the copyright formalities, I think he did, this will not be public domain for a long time. You can use it on en.wp now under fair use, however, any fair use rational on Commons is not usefull becaus fair use is not allowed here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the work is not yet PD in the country of origin ---jkb- (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete work by Jakub Obrovsky (Czech, 1882-1949). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the work is not yet PD in the country of origin ---jkb- (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete work by Jakub Obrovsky (Czech, 1882-1949). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of scope; unused private picture. –Tryphon☂ 12:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Was in fr:Doigt d'honneur for few seconds only... --Leyo 15:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
deleted as out scope, image used for vandalism, Gnangarra 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems out of scope to me. The source of the background image is also unclear. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Impossible to guess what it is. --GaAs11671 13:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Some images of Santa Maria di Monte Albano (Mori)
[edit]- File:Portale Montalbano di Mori 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Portale Montalbano di Mori.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no COM:FOP in Italy, and the wood panels decorating the portal are documented to be a work by sculptor Luigi Bombana (Mori, May 11 1913 - December 2 1969) (a brief biography here, in Italian). Anyways, the lower right panel indicates the year that World War II ended, so their author was clearly still alive 70 years ago. -- IANEZZ (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not a public domain photo. It is under copyright by its photographer, Arnold Adler. --Mdmalon (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- The source at NASA states "Credit: NASA" for this image, however you can never be absolutly sure whether this information is correct. What's your reason for beliving that this image was originally created by a Arnold Adler? --myself488 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
*Keep, no valid grounds for deletion have been provided per myself's statement. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that everywhere else this image is used it's credited to Arnold Adler. This cropped image on the NASA site gives credit to Adler. As does this and this. Adler's website lists Columbia University as a client where Hansen is an adjunct professor. His website states that he reserves all rights. Alder's name is actually in the lower left hand corner of the image, although it can't be read, or in my case even identified as a name, in this lower resolution image. I have no idea why the NASA site gives photo credit to itself on the page where I found it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Atmoz's findings. While it's right to assume that something found on the NASA webpage is PD unless we have information to the contrary, we mustn't assume this in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. Possible copyvios on the part of NASA aren't a good enough reason for us to use this image. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do note that the use by NASA was in 2007(first publish under a NASA PD-license?) where as the other usages are from 2008 and 2009. Gnangarra 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per Nyttend Polarlys (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Table should be made with wikitable; not used in any project. --Leyo 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, tables as gifs are useless with the wikisoftware given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted Olympic Logo Hektor (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No, obvious case of PD-textlogo. The olympic rings are out of copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There has been a complaint sent by the International Olympic Committee and therefore an OTRS ticket. According to NuclearWarfare, the Foundation's legal counsel is of the opinion that this image passes the bar of creativity. The .svg version has already been deleted for that reason. See the deletion discussion. Hektor (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion then was actually keep, so it's just because of the oppinion of that counsel that it got deleted. I'd still and nevertheless keep, because if we really have to set the bar of creativity this low, then we could delete almost every logo and abandon that rule. This is just plain text, anyway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that there are better uses of the money of the Foundation than going in court against the International Olympic Committee. Hektor (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion then was actually keep, so it's just because of the oppinion of that counsel that it got deleted. I'd still and nevertheless keep, because if we really have to set the bar of creativity this low, then we could delete almost every logo and abandon that rule. This is just plain text, anyway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There has been a complaint sent by the International Olympic Committee and therefore an OTRS ticket. According to NuclearWarfare, the Foundation's legal counsel is of the opinion that this image passes the bar of creativity. The .svg version has already been deleted for that reason. See the deletion discussion. Hektor (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted Olympic Logo, the Flickr account that uploaded this logo in their own page doesn't have the rights over it.--Sfs90 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no Freedom of Panorama in France, therefore infringing Niki de Saint Phalle's copyright Hektor (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in France. --GaAs11671 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Grabsleben-Großrettbach-Kirche von Südwest.jpg, except this one has time shown. Wknight94 talk 17:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to believe that this image is own work by the uploader. The image resolution is quite low and no EXIF data is given. 80.187.97.249 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a commerical logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot - No indication game is released as GPL as license would suggest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free (logo) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
trademark rights 89.54.155.174 23:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
trademark rights 89.54.133.15 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-free logo - Enwiki duplicate tagged as such Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Album cover (non-free) - enwiki duplicate tagged as such Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
enwiki duplicated Tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Logo - may meet 'fair-use' criteria for local project Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Postage stamp of unknown authorship - May meet criteria for fair-use Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete: actually this is not a postage stamp issued by the Peruvian postal service but a Cinderella stamp so normal copyright law applies which would mean 70 years after the death of the author. As this seems to have been produced in 1925 and the author is claimed to be unknown, we really don't know if the author died less than 70 years ago or if the author is really unknown. In the later case it would be in the public domain being 85 years old. Ww2censor (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Quibik (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Mural may be in the public domain, but who took the photograph? Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Probable source: http://archeologue.over-blog.com/article-31032117.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The mention "la marque centenaire" suggests that the drawing is post-1937. It is then almost certain that it is not in the public domain, even if we consider it anonymous (in spite of a possible signature in the bottom right corner). Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Does not look old enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No date, no way to derive PD status. Eusebius (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Completely out of scope. Used only for a vanity page at en:wp; see en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SupaFly98/Megan E. Wagner. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Outside of project scope. Blurpeace 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no Freedom of Panorama in France. Hektor (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of unknown author, likely the photographer is not dead for 70+ years. Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in France. Picture of a copyrighted work by Lagriffoul (d. in 1981) 86.217.12.153 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Lagriffoul died in 1981. Hektor (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Useful, in scope. Trycatch (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to be a birthday celebration for Drake's (a baking company) using a scaled up version of one of their better known products. --Simonxag (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For me it looks like a private picture. What should be the educational use? Quality is bad, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- w:Drake's: "During this period, Drake's celebrated its 100th anniversary in 1988, by producing the world's largest Ring Ding cake." Image description: "Worlds largest Ring Ding". Date: 1988. Trycatch (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If Roman Dent is the subject, who is the photographer? Eusebius (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep personal image in use on his user page. Maybe he has a delay on his camera, maybe he got a friend to take it: we generally accept that when people supply photos of themselves they do have the right to license these. --Simonxag (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
following Simonxag Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, self promotion Amada44 (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Project of the former member of the notable band, so in scope. Not sure about copyrights, though. ([2]) Trycatch (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see any reason to doubt the photo, perhaps it might be useful so Keep. --Simonxag (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see any reason to doubt the photo, perhaps it might be useful so
Kept. In scope. MGA73 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Created for now-deleted article at en:wp; useless without that article Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Could still be useful in Category:File systems, as an example of a directory tree shown in a textual user interface. -- IANEZZ (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This image comes from a postcard with the headline "Für Freiheit und Recht" and the caption Kurt Eisner, Bayerischer Ministerpräsident. Eisener was Minister President 1918–1919, a relative short time. Its not uncommon for politicians to look very similar in clothing or dressing, but I take this similarity to contest, that the author is unknown. No evidence provided that the author is unknown, the photo looks very similar to that created by Heinrich Hoffmann 1918, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Fotoarchiv Hoffmann hoff-920. You can review both images, this postcard as well as the Hoffmann photo, in the online collection of the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, http://bpkgate.picturemaxx.com/ (Kurt Eisner, This image #50033611, comparable images: #50033611, #50089637). Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Eisner-kurt.jpg, same image. No evidence of anonymous author, no evidence that the author died 70+ years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I not said, that the image is attributed to him but I said, that the image is not anonymous and that it will be possible to find out an author. From the similarity I think it is maybe from the same photo session. According to Google booksearch the book Rudolf Herz, Dirk Halfbrodt, Revolution und Fotografie: München 1918/1919 ISBN 3889400272 (is in my local library, will have a look on Monday) examines what kind of postcards and portraites existed. Most photographs seems to come from either Hoffmann or Germaine Krull. Claiming this photo as anonymous or "pd-old" without providing references is dubious and highly inaccurate. Especially in such cases if you have an archive storing this image - you must ask this archive, they are the experts, maybe they have information. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
With some delay I went to the library and yes, clearly, this portrait is from Germaine Krull who died 1985! Claiming a portrait "anonymous" is always an inaccurate argument, the portraitists is almost never anonymous, creating a portait, not a passing by photo but a portrait with someone sitting in front of someone, always leaves traces and is written down somewhere, in this case it was simple in a book, in other cases it requires some more investigations. Dont be lazy and declare anything as anonymous, thats not only a big copyright problem but its also not correct from an educational viewpoint.
- File:KurtEisner.jpg and File:Eisner-kurt.jpg: Germaine Krull, see book p78
- File:KurtEisnerPresidenteDeBaviera.png: Germaine Krull, see book p76, p77
Note however, that according to the book we know of four portraits of Eisner. The first two were created in a sitting at Eisners home before February 1918. He weares short hair, one image shows him thinking, the other with an austere face expression viewing to the visitor. The second two were created in late October/early November 1918 following his imprisonment in October. They show him with full hair. All portraits were published various times. In the form of photopostcards Hoffmann was the first who published two of the portraits. (Rudolf Herz/Dirk Halfbrod, Revolution und Fotografie. München 1918/19. Nishen, Berlin 1988, ISBN 3-88940-027-2, Seite 78 f.) That maybe explains why some portraits are wrongly attributed to Hoffmann including the Hoffmann Fotoarchiv. --Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting. But it seems that Krull never got any money for these after she had first sold them to Hofmann? Is there anyone that can give permission for the use of these photographs? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- ? She is the author and copyright holder, copyrigh expires 70 years after the authors death, thats 2056. Anything else, e.g. who published it, is not interesting but maybe explains wrong attribution in archives (online archives, 99% of archives are not online, so searching online may create mistakes). --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If she sold her rights to the publisher, it is Hofmanns estate that owns the rather theoretical rights (if they did not sell to Bettman/Corbis or some other agency). The very long copyright terms have only served the interests of the big companies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same photo was published by various publishers, it was not sold but (if that concept existed at that time or was named so) licensed to the publishers. Thats how a photographer makes their busines. In this case we e.g. talk about the postcard published by Verlag Ludwig Welsch. Also Hoffmann published it, but that not makes him the copyright holder - but it makes the archives who got his works in large boxes, think, that he was the creator - and it made me think he is the author because only Hoffmanns work is digitalized and searchable in the web. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a couple of simple remarks on the picture: 1)I assume that the reason for deleting it is that it is still under copyright in Germany, right? When I uploaded the picture I trusted www.archive.org information that the book it belonged to was in the public domain (I suppose they meant according to US laws). The picture being part of the book, it had to be in the public domain as well (at least in the US). If it is indeed not so in Germany, well, I suppose it must be deleted. 2) If it is indeed deleted I suggest someone kindly asks or buys a similar portrait from the bundesarchiv. They do have pictures of Eisner that await digitalizing and they do digitalize and allow a copy to be uploaded to wikimedia (they charge for the service) as any other bundesarchiv picture. That way this picture will be gone, but it will be replaced by another one and its service will remain, its main target, I'd say.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If they have a picture that is public domain. I doubt, the cited book says, that we know of 4 portraits of Eisner and all 4 created by the same author died 1985. Some press photos from Eisner appereance from that book where created by Hoffmann (died 1957) and Franz Xaver Hartl (died 1950). --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am no lawyer but I think the photo needs not to be in the public domain but only given to wikipedia with a free-enough license. I don't think the 1930's pictures the bundesarchiv is giving wikipedia are in the public domain, for instance, but they seem to have the authority to give them to wikipedia under certain circumstances (a certain license, a certain size and quality,etc). The book did not state anything about the portrait, as far as I can remember (you can check at the site I mentioned as the source of the picture), but was declared as being in the public domain. As the picture is part of the book (as the front cover, the introduction and, say, paragraph 144 on page 400), it must be in the public domain. Otherwise it would make no sense to say a book is in the public domain, you would have to go item by item of the book, decide how you split it up, etc. As I said, I understand the picture IS in the public domain in US (as it was publish before 1923 as seem to be required by US law), but possibly not under German law and thus I guess it should be removed. As I understand the goal of wikipedia is to spread knowledge as much as possible, I suggested its replacement. I think it is feasible and it would be a good thing, as we should try to add as much information as possible to wikipedia, certainly within the required licenses, but trying to emphasize the addition of media more than its deletion (otherwise we would be safer adding nothing at all and no possible copyright violation would be risked at all). My position is: it does seem the file is not under public domain in Germany as required by wikipedia (unless someone holding the rights can gave it to wikipedia with an acceptable license), and if so it should be deleted. But that is not good enough, we must strive to keep the information and the alternative I suggested is, as far I as know, feasible indeed (I asked bundesarchiv itself about other pictures some time ago)...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The book is from the UK. The archive.org status is based on US law, it is maybe pd in the US but the picture inside is not public domain in germany. Commons content must be pd in both, the US and the country of origin. The Bundesarchiv (dont know why you point on them, they are just one archive concentrated on government related works) can only grant licenses for such images they 1) got permission to reuse inside the license from the authors (e.g. Government press staff) or 2) those works they inherited from the authors as copyright is only transferable via heritage. --Martin H. (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the book is PD in US but the picture is not so in Germany and that is why I assume the picture will end up being deleted. However, this is rather secondary for me. The main issue for me is what are we going to do to add back into Commons the missing information and that is why I raised the idea of asking the bundesarchiv (that I doubt has the copyright the 100,000 images it has recently given to Commons due to inheritance or because they were taken by state photographers) for a "replacement". If there are any better ideas I am ready to here them. What I would rather not see is a passive attitude of deleting a picture (for very sensible reasons no doubt) and doing nothing to replace it. Any ideas then?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- The book is from the UK. The archive.org status is based on US law, it is maybe pd in the US but the picture inside is not public domain in germany. Commons content must be pd in both, the US and the country of origin. The Bundesarchiv (dont know why you point on them, they are just one archive concentrated on government related works) can only grant licenses for such images they 1) got permission to reuse inside the license from the authors (e.g. Government press staff) or 2) those works they inherited from the authors as copyright is only transferable via heritage. --Martin H. (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am no lawyer but I think the photo needs not to be in the public domain but only given to wikipedia with a free-enough license. I don't think the 1930's pictures the bundesarchiv is giving wikipedia are in the public domain, for instance, but they seem to have the authority to give them to wikipedia under certain circumstances (a certain license, a certain size and quality,etc). The book did not state anything about the portrait, as far as I can remember (you can check at the site I mentioned as the source of the picture), but was declared as being in the public domain. As the picture is part of the book (as the front cover, the introduction and, say, paragraph 144 on page 400), it must be in the public domain. Otherwise it would make no sense to say a book is in the public domain, you would have to go item by item of the book, decide how you split it up, etc. As I said, I understand the picture IS in the public domain in US (as it was publish before 1923 as seem to be required by US law), but possibly not under German law and thus I guess it should be removed. As I understand the goal of wikipedia is to spread knowledge as much as possible, I suggested its replacement. I think it is feasible and it would be a good thing, as we should try to add as much information as possible to wikipedia, certainly within the required licenses, but trying to emphasize the addition of media more than its deletion (otherwise we would be safer adding nothing at all and no possible copyright violation would be risked at all). My position is: it does seem the file is not under public domain in Germany as required by wikipedia (unless someone holding the rights can gave it to wikipedia with an acceptable license), and if so it should be deleted. But that is not good enough, we must strive to keep the information and the alternative I suggested is, as far I as know, feasible indeed (I asked bundesarchiv itself about other pictures some time ago)...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- If they have a picture that is public domain. I doubt, the cited book says, that we know of 4 portraits of Eisner and all 4 created by the same author died 1985. Some press photos from Eisner appereance from that book where created by Hoffmann (died 1957) and Franz Xaver Hartl (died 1950). --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a couple of simple remarks on the picture: 1)I assume that the reason for deleting it is that it is still under copyright in Germany, right? When I uploaded the picture I trusted www.archive.org information that the book it belonged to was in the public domain (I suppose they meant according to US laws). The picture being part of the book, it had to be in the public domain as well (at least in the US). If it is indeed not so in Germany, well, I suppose it must be deleted. 2) If it is indeed deleted I suggest someone kindly asks or buys a similar portrait from the bundesarchiv. They do have pictures of Eisner that await digitalizing and they do digitalize and allow a copy to be uploaded to wikimedia (they charge for the service) as any other bundesarchiv picture. That way this picture will be gone, but it will be replaced by another one and its service will remain, its main target, I'd say.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same photo was published by various publishers, it was not sold but (if that concept existed at that time or was named so) licensed to the publishers. Thats how a photographer makes their busines. In this case we e.g. talk about the postcard published by Verlag Ludwig Welsch. Also Hoffmann published it, but that not makes him the copyright holder - but it makes the archives who got his works in large boxes, think, that he was the creator - and it made me think he is the author because only Hoffmanns work is digitalized and searchable in the web. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If she sold her rights to the publisher, it is Hofmanns estate that owns the rather theoretical rights (if they did not sell to Bettman/Corbis or some other agency). The very long copyright terms have only served the interests of the big companies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- ? She is the author and copyright holder, copyrigh expires 70 years after the authors death, thats 2056. Anything else, e.g. who published it, is not interesting but maybe explains wrong attribution in archives (online archives, 99% of archives are not online, so searching online may create mistakes). --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per the research by Martin H. according to which this photograph was created by Germaine Krull who died in 1985. This is PD in the United States but not in its country of origin, Germany, where pma 70 rule holds, i.e. we have to wait until 1 January 2056 until this photograph becomes PD in Germany. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If Roman Dent is the subject, who is the photographer? Eusebius (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Maybe he has a delay on his camera, maybe he got a friend to take the picture: we generally accept that when people supply photos of themselves they do have the right to license these. --Simonxag (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's possible. Please also have a look at File:Roman & RED camera.JPG, where he apparently did the same thing with a very different camera. --Eusebius (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
fake logo of the ENS de Lyon 140.77.161.202 (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem so fake [3], but is it acceptable on Commons ? --GaAs11671 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, link shows that this is the correct logo, and this is a good example of {{PD-textlogo}}. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the E is clearly wrong (the middle line should be equal length). Look at [www.ens-lyon.eu]. Also, propotions of "n" seem wrong. 82.226.103.69 10:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, sort of. Actually deleted this file, loaded File:Logo ENS de Lyon 2010.png with corrected "E" and "S", note that "N" appears to be correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Official site says "Son usage est strictement limité aux seules personnes ou entités ayant reçu une autorisation écrite de la part de la société 9e Art + organisatrice du FIBD." and implies no derivative [4]. But the uploader, user:Fibd, said he is the author, so I open the discussion. --GaAs11671 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- For information, see en:Lewis Trondheim. --GaAs11671 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly logo - Would meet 'fair-use' criteria on enwiki Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say this is still acceptable as PD-textlogo. Only very simple geometric shapes. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Per wthat is said on it's description and nobody gives a damn to read it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
An 1928 German sheet music cover. There's no proof that all the author(s) died more than 70 years ago. In the lower left you can see the name "A. Deventer" who most likely created the cover artwork. There are also the names of the photographers on some of the photos used on the cover: "Dührkoop", "Binder", "Sandau", "Gertr. Munckel", "v. Gudenberg", "Jacobi" and "Byk". -- Kam Solusar (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"Dührkoop" could be de:Rudolf Dührkoop (died 1918). "Gertr. Munckel" is most likely Gertrud Munckel (can't find date of death). "Byk" could be Suse Byk who after 1960. And Sandau most likely refers to Ernst Sandau, whose date of death is unknown, but he was still alive in 1932 according to User:Lupo here. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also v. Gudenberg was maybe Creator:Wolff von Gudenberg, died 1964. The creator template was created by Lupo, I not found him in the ndb/adb or dnb, maybe there is a mistake because "Wolff von Gudenberg" is known as a complete family name, but thats not the problem here. The litographer Kraatz, Leop. is the Lithographische Anstalt Leopold Kraatz, a company. --Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Well, Kam Solusar already showed that this image most likely is not PD. Checking out Byk and v. Gudenbergs biografies, it seems quite likely that it was them. Munckel (sometimes also 'Munkel') disappeard end of the 1920s from Google recherche (death/marriage/bankrupt/...) Cecil (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
