Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/19
 |
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}
Obvious non-free file TAnthony (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agree, and not likely to achieve permission. ZooFari 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisement for a swedish website - unclear copyrights and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - taken from a website (BBCmundo) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - taken from a website (that seems to be down now) , unused, without description out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (or does these people from poland have any notability?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope , no educational value, strange combination Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I see no problems with scope, but this comes from http://www.barretstown.org/content.asp?ContentId=620 - which means that permission is required via COM:OTRS. Same for the rest of the uploads by User:Barretstown IRE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused file - unnotable house, only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
advertisement for something (counterstrike) - out of scope, unused Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. 78.55.210.187 07:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
self created artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
incorrect license (uploader is not the author) Ilya Voyager (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Svetoslav Roerich is dead in 1993, so wait untill 2063. --GaAs11671 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license tag (uploaded is not by the author) Ilya Voyager (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Svetoslav Roerich is dead in 1993, so wait untill 2063. --GaAs11671 11:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We misspelt his name - Should be Nicky Grist Silverbackmedia (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We Miss spelt his name! Silverbackmedia (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No need to delete. File renamed: File:Nicky Grist.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not "own ork". See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Geperudeta.jpg Ferbr1 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it turns out that the picture you have uploaded is from my own account in Flickr (note that the user name there is also "Hermenpaca"), so it is my "own work" ;-). I have no problem if the image I uploaded is deleted and replaced by the "new" one, if you feel this way its origin is more clear. I will update the link in de.wikipedia article accordingly.Hermenpaca (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm Sorry. [1] Ferbr1 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOfrenda_a_la_Virgen_en_Fallas_2008_2.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=36746751&oldid=36618094){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_February_13#File:Black_Dahlia.jpg leads to the bad result, that NOTHING was fixed, the image on en.wp still have the stupid "pd-self" claim, and now we have this on Commons. The discussion clearifies that this is not pd-usgov but likely fair use. As we can see from the image itself, this was created by Santa Barbara Police. I dont remember where this was discussed, but wasnt there something with such government works from California that qualifies them as free? Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- True, but also after so many years? - Trijnstel (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, this was circulating already a long time ago (see here), so it must be {{PD-US-no notice}}.
Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, this was circulating already a long time ago (see here), so it must be {{PD-US-no notice}}.
- True, but also after so many years? - Trijnstel (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "Stupid" issue was easily fixed, and in less time than it takes to nominate a valuable image for deletion. Jennavecia (Talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Closed, fixed. This image was not nominated for deletion but for improvement, a so called deletion request is simply the easiest way to do so and it is the only way to get attention in absence of a working quality system, a not watched "missing source information" system and useless file talks and in absence of own knowledge how to resolve it. So dont know why you complain, I could have take one of the "hidden" paths and this image would be deleted instead of fixed. Complain at en.wp why they close deletion requests with the stupid result that something is not ok but nothing is fixed. --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
private unused image - "Homme parfait" with source "Montpellier" - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Usually considered same thing or subspecies of Pyrocephalus rubinus—Category:Pyrocephalus rubinus --Innotata (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Used only at en:Ryan Pronk, which has been deleted for lack of notability; no reasonable use, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We're actually lacking checker images depicting players. I have added it to that category. ZooFari 02:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw, since this is more useful than I expected. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio Svgalbertian (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Likely logo of Preisüberwachers / Surveillance des prix. Logo might have fallen out of use, only example of usage found at [2]. --Svgalbertian (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Copyvio confirmed [3], moved to speedy deletion. --Svgalbertian (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Already deleted. — Dferg (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
One source doesn't exist and one is Creative Commons licensed, invalidating the public domain license. Hekerui (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. One image deleted as a copyvio so this set is also a copyvio. MGA73 (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
File:The_marriage_ceremony_of_Feroze_Gandhi_and_Indira_Gandhi,_March_26,_1942_at_Anand_Bhawan,_Allahabad.jpg
[edit]
Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- That might be a mistake, though I couldn't locate the above mention non-free image at wiki, so please place a link here, so that it can be replaced, with this one! In any case the image in question is in Public Domain, as per {{PD-India}}, all images before January 1, 1950! At least check the license template before nominating, would save loads of wiki time! Thanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Ekabhishek. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, FOP doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
According to enwiki this is NOT 'free' in it's source country? Is enwiki wrong? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems {{PD-RusEmpire}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Contributors of enwiki sometimes made mistakes. --Mladifilozof (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright vilation from official website http://www.sabihagokcen.aero/files/fotogaleri/SabihaGokcenHavalimani_11.jpg Teemeah (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please also note that the uplaoder has been notified of copyvios several times, and still continues uploading + changing valid pictures at several wikis to his uplaoded copyvios. Would be high to block indefinitely. --Teemeah (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a screenshot or some other kind of reproduction from television. But it is not a self-created photograph. Martin H. (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
unused logo without description - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. "07:38, 26 March 2010 Mbdortmund (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Kok FOros.png" (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kok_FOros.png)" MGA73 (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
not a really good drawing - unused since 2006 - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:FOP says no FoP for 'recent' US artworks.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Enwiki duplicate tagged for PUI - No Fop for sculptures in the US Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused and undocumented as this portrait is, it is of no educational value. It might be a derivative work of some kind, too (see the texture). Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal picture, out of scope. Eusebius (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Unused personal picture, out of scope. Eusebius (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The legs should not have kneecaps, and the eyes can be a bit to large. The wings should not have secondary feathers. Conty (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, but a web site for source, it is probably not free. The website says "Photos : © Gwen Lebras -- Illustrations : © Angers Loire Métropole/CL" (but the link on the description page of the image doesn't work). --GaAs11671 10:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It is a corrupt version of original : laterally transposed and surrounding dates, captions and author signature removed. Replaced by authentic reproduction File:JLM Lawrence Vanity Fair 21 January 1871.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Middle image of composite not sourced. Hekerui (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom: 3 images are stated as sources but only 2 are used and so no actual source is given for the middle picture. --Simonxag (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No photo at source. Likely this was not created by an VOA employee but by the court. Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like original link "died" but you still can see photo on VOA site using Google: [4] --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was more interested in the caption, if it stats something like Photo/Footage by VOA and an name of the VOA author. The image is small, the symbol in the upper right is not readable, but it not looks like this is created by VOA. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.voanews.com/croatian/Archive/images/voatv_milosevic_1505.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.voanews.com/croatian/archive/2002-09/a-2002-09-06-5-1.cfm%3Fmoddate%3D2002-09-06&usg=__nKELm2Ui3PLmxcj_CVEyw-nULH0=&h=102&w=150&sz=16&hl=en&start=16&sig2=GvUb0CYM066gUISUDhij2g&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=gi-RxpXrNgexBM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilosevic%2Bsite:www.voanews.com/%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DXB5%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=du-jS8yCO4nFsAaovYTDCA){kind=link}
The video where this frame was ripped from has been definitely broadcasted by icty. I believe they didn't release anything under PD so you can delete this immediately. 巡 Mihajlo [ talk ] 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --russavia (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my poor English thats why i wrote in Swedish in the first). I was missled in a way, and I later got knowledge of that the person I got the permission from wasn't the real copyright owner. I'm very sorry for the problems I've caused by this and hope the file can be removed as soon as possible. At this time it's not used at any of the Wp-projects. (Syntax of this rfd by uploader User:BiblioteKarin was corrected by me.) --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Tagged as Non-free (logo) at enwiki - Possibly pd-textlogo from looking at it Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. pd-textlogo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-free (logo) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment, since the nominator didn't provide a link, here it is: w:File:Hb-logo-high-res-no-background.png it also has a talkpage. –Krinkletalk 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)- Comment There was an error in the thumnail here on commons (color profile), also the above linked en.wiki file seems to be already on commons (File:Hb-logo-high-res-no-background.png) as {{PD-textlogo}} which seems to be right. I've deleted the here nominated file as a duplicate. The file was not in use. –Krinkletalk 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - See above. –Krinkletalk 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Permission is for wikipedia only, not free enough. –Tryphon☂ 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. If uploader agrees to remove "for Wikipedia" we can undelete. MGA73 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Такой же файл File:ЧС200-001.jpg грузил другой участник и указал что это завод Шкода снимал. Zimin.V.G. (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:ЧС200-001.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged for No-Permission ( I can't see anything that says CC on the link given) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I uploaded that photo as other users uploaded these photos. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. License on image is "Attribution-ShareAlike". MGA73 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free (logo) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree logo. MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. License on Lostpedia (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:LogBook_Placid_Azylum5.png) is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/. MGA73 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-fre Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Fair use material is not allowed on Commons: wrongly transferred from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto_discovery_plates.png, where it is tagged as non-free
This is a photo of a photo from a photo exposition. See the description at the source, so derivative work, original author unknown, not free. Sourcelink: [5] Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Belgrano (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a photo of a montage of photos from a photo exposition. See the description at the source, so derivative work, original author unknown, not free. Sourcelink: [6] Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Belgrano (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki Duplicate tagged for No permission Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete / no permission A.J. (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license tag. There's no permission from the author, because R.christie is not the author, but the author is Daphne Dobson. See the relevant discussion here. Ilya Voyager (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
The original upload says Original artwork (pencil sketch of photograph) property of uploader (Richard Christie) No copyright claimed. I think you should ask User:R.christie. --GaAs11671 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)forget
Deleted. Cite from the uploader Daphne Dobson gave me the pencil sketch of Andres Segovia in 1994. It is my property. The scan was made by me. No copyright has ever been asserted. It is a commons mistake by people to assume that just because they own a work of art, they also own its copyright. The author does not need to assert her copyright, it is hers until she releases it by stating so. So if she never made any comment concerning copyright, it still belongs to her. Cecil (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-free (currency) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- (pt-br)Essa imagem foi publicada pela Agência Brasil, portanto, mesmo sendo uma imagem de moeda, está automaticamente em CC. A imagem só não está disponível atualmente na Agência Brasil por o site da mesma sofreu perdas, e eles estão em um site/servidor provisórios.Não colocaria essa imagem aqui no Commons senão tivesse a absoluta certeza da mesma respeitar as regras
- (en)This image was published by the Brazil, therefore, even if an image of currency, is automatically in DC. The image just is not currently available in Brazil by the Agency site suffered the same loss, and they are in a site / server duties. Do not put this image here on Commons but had the absolute certainty of the same respect the rules.Thanks
- Caspereark (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The exemption from copyright for government works in Brazil is very narrow and does not include currency. See the WIPO translation, at Title II, Chapter I, 8.IV Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per rationale of Jameslwoodward. Cecil (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
possible copyright violation 141.12.66.131 09:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep copyvio on what? The logo is probably PD-text logo and also de minimus. The front panel layout is not eligible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Belgrano (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the image is identical to one used in a Thales brochure. Deleted as copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Aalto vases
[edit]- File:Aalto vaas 1937.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Aalto-malja.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Alvar Aalto tvar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Alvar Aalto vases from late 30´s.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
According to Finnish copyright laws, "works [of art]" are protected by coypright 70 years after the creator's death. This covers also industrial art, if the piece in question can be described as a product of originality and artistic vision, and it can be argued that no one other would have designed the piece in the same way. The designer of these vases (most often called Aalto vases or Savoy vases), Alvar Aalto, died in 1976, and his works enter PD in 2047. Pitke (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DW#Isn't every product_copyrighted_by_someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is the US copyright law, not the Finnish. Pitke (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide some Finnish case law or opinions by the Finnish copyright council to support your position that these photos should be deleted here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Informal translation of the Finnish copyright law, chapter 1, section 1: "Subject and content of the copyright law": A person who has creates a literal or an artistic work, holds the copyright for that work, be it fine literature or descriptive presentation in written or spoken form, musical composition or work of dramatic art, cinematic work, photographic work or any other work of visual art, architectural work, work of industrial art or handiwork art or expressed in other ways. (24.3.1995/446)" Pitke (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to get opinions. Pitke (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is the US copyright law, not the Finnish. Pitke (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here are some case laws and quotes from reports: Tekijänoikeusneuvoston lausunto 1997:4 (Statement 19897:4 by the Finnish Copyright council): "Industrial Designer A has requested the Copyright council for a statement regarding the copyright of the "Fyr" lamp designed by them" (...) "The Copyright council firstly states that (...) the request for statement is regarding whether the discussed lamp is within the "work scope" or not" (...) "To be covered by copyright, a product must be within the so-called "work scope". That is, the work must be a unique and original creative product. A product is deemed to be within the "work scope" when it is unique and original enough that no other person than the creator could normally be expected to create an equal product. The literary or artistic level of the product does not affect whether a product should be covered by copyright, nor does the amount of labour or knowledge required for producing the product. (...)"
- "(...) that the proposed law would not cover every product that can, by a person of no especial education, be called an artistic utility article. A product of industrial art or handicraft art is covered by copyright on the condition that it can be regarded an artistic piece. (...)" Komiteanmietintö 1953:5, page 45)
- "Concerning products of industrial art and handicraft art, or so-called utility art", the threshold of the "work scope" has in practice been settled relatively high. (...)"
- "Deciding whether a given product is within the "work scope" depends on considering the circumstances, however it is imperative that the product be new and original." (Komiteanmietintö 1953:5: Ehdotus laiksi tekijänoikeudesta kirjallisiin ja taiteellisiin teoksiin, page. 44)
- "(...) That a product has a practical use does not affect whether or not it is within the "work scope". However, if the purpose of the product dominates over the final outcome of the creation process rather than the creator's artistic visions, the product is not considered unique and original enough to be covered by copyright." (from a report considering candlesticks, page 5)
- I'm also contacting the council, but getting a report might well take six months. Hopefully they'll deal with this quickly... Pitke (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment The report has been now given, and it explicitly states the Aalto vase is copyrighted as a work of art. The report is in Finnish, but I can quote/scan and ask fellow Finns to confirm this. Pitke (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quotes: "Abstract: The Aalto vase is a work of art as defined in §1 of [Finnish] copyright law."
- "Plea [by Iittala Oy]: (...) Iittala finds that the wave-like shape of the vase is not dictated by the intended use of the product, but clearly expresses artistic effort from the part of the creator. According to Iittala's view, no other person could have designed a vase of equivalent properties."
- "Statement by the copyright council: (...) According to the council's view, however, the wave-like shapes of the two original Aalto vases are not dictated by the intended use of the item, but by the artistic effort by their creator. Thus the council finds the two original Aalto vases original and individual enough that they should be considered works of art as defined by §1 by the [Finnish] copyright law." "The copyright of these works of art does not only include completely identical copies, but extends more widely. The vases presented by the applicant [that's me] all are versions of the original Aalto vases. They resemble the original Aalto vases to invoke a feeling of sameness in a viewer." Pitke (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- And the links I provided for pictures as requested by the council (Savoy vase being the original name of the Aalto vase): Wikimedia Commons -tietokannassa olevia kuvia Savoy-maljakosta: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aalto-malja.JPG - Iittalan sarjatyönä valmistama pienoisversio (?) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alvar_Aalto_tvar.jpg - korkea versio (mahdollinen jäljitelmä) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alvar_Aalto_vases_from_late_30%C2%B4s.jpg - 30-luvun kappaleita, ns. "klassiset" Savoy-maljakon mittasuhteet (mahdollisesti alkuperäissarjaa; ensijulkaisu oli vuonna 1937). Sekä http://www.designcentershop.com/catalog/images/Aalto_160_sand_shop.jpg - Iittalan sarjatyönä valmistama versio Pitke (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Pictures of the Savoy vase as found in the Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aalto-malja.JPG - a mass produced miniature version by Iittala (?), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alvar_Aalto_tvar.jpg - a high version (a possible imitation piece), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alvar_Aalto_vases_from_late_30%C2%B4s.jpg - pieces from the 1930s, so-called "classical" proportions of the Savoy vase (might belong to the original series; the vase was first presented in 1937) - and http://www.designcentershop.com/catalog/images/Aalto_160_sand_shop.jpg - a mass produced version by Iittala." Pitke (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (a shame, since they're pretty) with thanks to Pitke for the research and followup. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The copyright council does not say that the photos are infringements. As far as I understand, they only say that copies and imatations are infringements. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that common sense I ask? These photos are of 3D pieces of art protected by copyright. The photo rights have been released, but because the vases are there, and the vases aren't free game, the photos can't be stored in Commons. Please don't ask me to file another request and make the council hold another full-fledged sitting for this. Pitke (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not my fault that you failed to ask the most relevant question. The copyright council seems to feel that the protection of this kind of utilitarian designs is limited, when it says: "The copyright of these works of art does not only include completely identical copies, but extends more widely. " They did not state that "more widely" includes to prohibition of publishing photos of these vases without permission by the Aalto estate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- COM:DW. See also File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg for a nifty decision chart. Pitke (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's run that. It's accepted practice here for deciding.
- "3D object?" Check. On to "PD by age" to see if it's old enough
- "PD by age?" Nope. On to "Threshold of originality" to see if it's original enough
- "Threshold of Originality met?" Yes... see the above information provided by Pitke, under Finnish law it has been. So... on to "permanently installed in public"
- "Permanently installed in a public place?" Nope. Creator's permission is required
- "Creator's permission obtained?" Nope.
- ===>> DO NOT UPLOAD. ( == in this case ==) "delete" since it's uploaded already.
- QED. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's run that. It's accepted practice here for deciding.
- COM:DW. See also File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg for a nifty decision chart. Pitke (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not my fault that you failed to ask the most relevant question. The copyright council seems to feel that the protection of this kind of utilitarian designs is limited, when it says: "The copyright of these works of art does not only include completely identical copies, but extends more widely. " They did not state that "more widely" includes to prohibition of publishing photos of these vases without permission by the Aalto estate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that common sense I ask? These photos are of 3D pieces of art protected by copyright. The photo rights have been released, but because the vases are there, and the vases aren't free game, the photos can't be stored in Commons. Please don't ask me to file another request and make the council hold another full-fledged sitting for this. Pitke (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks to Pitke for doing all this work. And as Lar so nicely displayed in the last edit => deleted. Cecil (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
out of date photo of band, member has since left --Bigdukeboy (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not think this is a valid reason for deletion. — Dferg (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No we do not delete just because some members leave a band. It shows the band as it was at that date. MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(some of the people in the photo are not in the band so it is not a photo of the duke spirit, people use this page for information on the band and this photo does not match the written information) --Bigdukeboy (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you know the correct description, fix it. Otherwise tag as {{Disputed}}, but no valid reason for a deletion given. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. The image is still useful, if properly contextualized Belgrano (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
На каком основании фото из архива завода Шкода от своего имени объявляет свободным человек не имеющий отношения к заводу? Zimin.V.G. (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not uploader's own work. Blacklake (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Фото грузит Виталий Прядко, но авторские права принадлежат Александру Бернштейну Zimin.V.G. (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted unless we get permission from the real author. Blacklake (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Фото грузит Виталий Прядко, но авторские права принадлежат Александру Бернштейну Zimin.V.G. (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted unless we get permission from the real author. Blacklake (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
