Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Possible copyright violation. Image in source leads to another image than the current; the one sourced is "All rights reserved" Bsadowski1 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 04:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in contact with the photographer through OTRS, ticket # 2010040910041403. He's made it clear he does not want this photo licensed for derivative works or commmercial reuse. --Chaser (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hold off. I should be withdrawing or modifying this shortly.--Chaser (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've now got the copyright holder's permission to license the lower resolution version. Could an administrator delete just the higher resolution version (leaving the low res version and the image description page) and close this deletion request? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Old version deleted. You should probably note on the description page that the ticket only applies to the low-res version, though, or some helpful person may decide to reupload the high-res image from the source. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no sense in this post, an insult to those who donate to this site.
- Offensive and meaningless image description. --Luca Oddone (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since April 6, 2010
This is an album cover...a Copyrighted non-free fair use image. WikiCommons can only have copyright free images. Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted copyvio, per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
image out of scope, unused malo (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Amada44 (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
unused image, out of scope malo (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Amada44 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Blurpeace 06:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Normally fireworks do not need freedom of panorama rights to be photographed. And fireworks are clearly the main focus of this image, not the building. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for architectural works in the UAE. Yes, the point of the image was to photograph the fireworks, but the point of the fireworks is highlighting the building and its opening. The building is not deminimis to the image, but the focus of it. Contrast File:Burj Dubai 2008 06 12.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete You can't separate the fireworks from the building -- they outline it and illuminate it. The building is the center of the image, after all. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work copyvio: there is no FOP in UAE, and missing permission from architect Adrian Smith who designed this iconic building that is currently off limits here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete building is the actual main topic, not fireworks. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
just a test Vininche (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I created this image, I don't like it, I want it deleted. --MosheA (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Question Do you have a particular reason for wanting it removed, besides just "I don't like it"? And if not, could you be persuaded to reconsider this nomination? I'd be reluctant to delete an image which is in use, and for which we seem to have only a very limited number of potential replacements, just because the author is not satisfied with it. I might feel differently if we had dozens of images of defecating cows to replace this with, but I could only find one other. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept - CC-licenses are irrevocable. No particular reason given for deletion, in use on two wikis. –Krinkletalk 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Image is orphaned and is corrupt due to a missing embedded image. Quibik (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Speedydelete
Bad and insufficient sources: this file consists of 4 images: of none of them with a good and valid source. The only source that was given by the uploader is en wikipedia which is after Commons rules not enough 80.187.107.102 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - per nom. The only reference was in "Other version" (File:Georgian T-55Ms.jpg) which is a crop of this one (not the other way around). Both deleted. –Krinkletalk 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt SVG file. --ZooFari 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment It is not corrupt, Firefox will display it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I looked into the issue and managed to fix it. Sorry about this, withdraw. ZooFari 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
out of focus, mickey mouse thing, unused image malo (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Blurry out of focus pic apparently of a Mickey Mouse doll with apparently irrelevent name. Infrogmation (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
G.H. Davis died 1960. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Leider hat sich in der Zwischenzeit herausgestellt, daß der als Illustration eingefügte Decksplan aus formellen urheberrechtlichen Gründen noch nicht als «public domain» bewertet werden kann. Daher musste das Bild nun entfernt werden.--Metilsteiner (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete but to be fair, it does have an "educational" description (A young man using a single finger point to express indignation and double finger point to express pretentiousness), although in my opinion the image doesn't show it. Blurry & out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Charming. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused. quality is low and there is no information to where the image was taken thus it is not of use. (If you feel otherwise, please add a category!) Amada44 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image (no source, no author) Amada44 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- malo (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Likely not self made, no description etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image (interesting source!!) Amada44 (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused. GeorgHH • talk 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused. GeorgHH • talk 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused. GeorgHH • talk 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
loco yo ? ("I, mad") - out of scope , unused private image Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (second DR) - maybe the daughter (adoption?) of the uploader = private Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (unless it has some quality) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
logo of a team jaxon - unused - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Scan of membership card. No permission from artwork designer. Teofilo (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete derivative. Per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently installed (1998/99) sculpture in Belgium, which does not have freedom of panorama. Túrelio (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Éclusette (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
screenshot - copyright violation - no exif Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, yes it is a screenshot, but not violate the copyright owner, because it is me personally.
BR Becman
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern buildings in Georgia. The architect has not been dead for at least 70 years. So, WikiCommons cannot hold it unfortunately. Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. All buildings in Signakhi were built in XIX, and only renewed nowadays.--Gaeser (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: That may or may not be true. I don't know this town. But the image did not pass review. That is a license problem and may be another reason to consider deletion. Just a suggestion. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The words of User:Gaeser acceptable for me. No reason to doubted his words. Anyway, aboute the "pass review" that mentiond. Seemed to be that the user Otiko delete his account in panoramio. I gather his photos to the Category:Otiko's photos. All of them where under the license of attribution, as it already checked in other his photos. Geagea (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment After looking closely at the evidence, I withdraw this DR and ask that this image be passed. The reason is I notice I passed many images from Otiko's account in February 2010...before he deleted his panoramio account and also because I think one can trust Gaesar's statement here that the buildings date to the 19th century. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Leoboudv, I know that your intention was good. Unfortunately, the photo have to delete because it did not pass review. thos are the rules. Anyway we need template like {{Flickr-change-of-license}} for the cases when the the photo pass review and the source not exsist anymore. Geagea (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete OK then. Since the uploader ask for this image to be deleted, then it should be deleted. It is a reasonable request by the uploader here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader requested deletion. Image is not used and copyright status is not possible to verify now. MGA73 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
no evidence of permission, identical photo (lower res) appears on blog from official site http://peterrollins.net/blog/ Mangostar (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio on flickr [1]. "From a found archive of old photos with Victor Tsoy and other members of the band Kino." does not give user right to label it Creative Commons. --Beaumain (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- whose archive? do you know? Алый Король (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- One who "finds" an archive does not owe any rights on it. The photo is not his. You can easily check over the web and see this image was published long before 2008. Most likely, it was copied from here (published 2007), resolution 455x297 fits just perfectly. It was uploaded on Last.fm in 2006. User slava is a bit too late to claim authorship for this photo as "Taken on September 23, 2008". Also, person's Last.fm profile, Blogger.com profile and planeteye profile (identity confirmed there) say he's 28, so he was only 8 when Tsoi died. Beaumain (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Makes me wonder if other Flickr photos of the same band suffer from the same Flickr washing. Wknight94 talk 14:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong name and description. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dmitriy_Muravyev_2010.JPG Vlaam (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Feel free to use {{Rename}} tag and/or fix the description. Deletion is not necessary. Wknight94 talk 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Image taken from Francine Houben's CV (see here for a copy). Not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- User also uploaded File:Thelibraryofbirmingham.JPG which comes from here on the same website, or here on the architect's website. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent (1985) sculpture by Denis-Adrien Debouvrie (died only in 2008[2]) in Belgium, which does not have freedom of panorama. As the purpose of this photo is to show the sculpture, it likely can't go by de minimis. Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
large image of an architect's impression of the Olympia quarter, Almere, the Netherlands. From the architect's website. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
logo with selfpromotion of some architects - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1996 sculpture in the USA. See COM:FOP#United States and http://www.denverzoo.org/visitors/sculpt_zooMap.asp Teofilo (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There was an author claim on the page that I reverted, the added author information looks not related to the uploader who calls himself Mohan on antother upload. The uploads are very different (camer, size, quality), note the 500px size which indicates website thumbnail or flickr. We have to talk about the author claim on this image. Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per TinEye: Same size on http://www.bits-goa.ac.in/About%20BPGC/Index.asp, larger size on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17555558&postcount=49. --Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is old, but the painting is new and creative enough (choice of colors). Source website has a copyright notice. Teofilo (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in France, unfortunately 193.56.37.1 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for 2D artworks such as this. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for 2D artworks such as this. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for 2D artworks such as this. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for 2D artworks such as this. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read the former DR? --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Mbdortmund has correctly noted that there's an issue here -- if these (including the three above) were done without permission -- then they are permitted on Commons on the grounds that because they're "illegal", the artist could not, as a practical matter, enforce his rights, see Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti. I think that's dubious reasoning because if they were done on private property, then the property owner would have a civil action against the artist, but that wouldn't affect the artist's ability to sell photos of the image and prevent others from doing so. And, by the way, they wouldn't be "illegal" in many jurisdictions.
- That's not the issue here, though, as policy is policy. The issue here is whether these are done with the permission of the property owner and therefore murals, which are copyrighted, or done without that permission and, therefore, acceptable under Commons policy, even though still copyrighted. Given their size and quality, I think it's better than 50/50 that these were painted with permission. These are not a fast pass with a spray can -- they took time and equipment. Just because the uploader calls it "graffiti" doesn't mean it was done without permission.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Design on a coach. Not "permanently located" bidimensional artwork. See COM:FOP#Canada. Teofilo (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's only a friggin' picture of a bus. Does this apply to every bus with a company logo? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- To every bus with a large size creative logo. Simple logos with basic shapes or containing only letters are OK. When the logo is small enough (your eyes don't focus immediatly on the logo when you see the picture), it is OK too per Commons:De minimis (it is OK too if the bus is small as a consequence of being far away in a large landscape, but perhaps you won't call this a "bus picture" any more). If it is for use in the English language Wikipedia, you may upload the picture there directly with a fair use rationale (while fair use is not allowed on Commons). Teofilo (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. So, "fair use" could apply to this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- In a Wikipedia article about that bus company or in a paragraph about transportations in the Wikipedia article about that city, yes, i would think so. Teofilo (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. We may not like it, but that's the law in Canada (and the USA, also). . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
not written permission by the author (sculptor) to Ansgar Walk in 1999. But in 1999 there were still no creative commons licenses. Therefore that permission is not valid. Teofilo (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of File:AsTu 1.jpg nominated for deletion because no agreement from sculptor to the terms of Creative Commons license. (There were no creative commons licenses in 1999 yet) Teofilo (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a scan of a book published, so, without OTRS, not a self-created work, and probably not very old (for the derivative work upon the photo of this mesoamerican codex). El Comandante
Hasta ∞ 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of landscape in France, unfortunately 193.56.37.1 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you be precise ? What do you mean with the word landscape ? Who are you, IP 193.56.37.1 ? ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
TO ADMINISTRATORS : How is it possible that anyone with a hidden identity can ask for a deletion and, as I look at the history of the contributions of this user, you did delete the files this IP proposed for deletion ? ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep This hostel was built by an architect who died nearly 70 years ago, and there is no evidence that anyone would claim copyrights about such a photograph. I just sent the question to the Cercle Guimard, anyway, and I hope we will have a quick answer on that point. Bruno (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)- Delete There is no Freedom of Panorama in France, the architect died less than 70 years ago. Therefore non free image, sorry. Hektor (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- For reference look at Freedom of panorama. Thanks.
- Keep Just wait for 2 years and the rights of the architect will expire. It's not like a recent building whose architect would still be alive or died recently. Peter17 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Since when are intellectual property rights negotiable on Commons ? Hektor (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately "Out of copyright in two years" doesn't do it. The uploader should wait two years. Our rule is that we respect copyright, even when we don't like the law, when it's a 1000 to 1 bet that no one will sue, and when no one cares.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Let's wait a little time for the answer of the Cercle Guimard at the question of Bruno. ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 12:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Useful image. If the decision will be to delete please upload it to en.Wiki prior of doing that, as it is in the Public Domain in the US (built 1910, i.e. published outside US prior to 1923). It can be than automaticaly uploaded to Commons from there in 2013, using w:en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. --Elekhh (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, utilitarian building, doesn't pass a threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Jameslwoodward. There are arrangements to ensure the image will be undeleted as soon as it is legal. Until then, we have to obey the copyright laws as well as our rules and delete the image. --Ireas talk•de•en 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think i'll just mention now; Don't feed the trolls. John Aplessed (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Time to end this. Although none of us like it, we obey the law. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The Trailer http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=89220 contains a copyright notice at least. Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Hope Lange in Peyton Place 2.jpg and the derivative File:Hope Lange in Peyton Place.jpg. Maybe PD for another reason, but not for the reason that it was published with no notice. Requires evaluation of correct copyright status and a correct license tag. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I changed the licence, I don't know if it's alright now(I'm french and it's already complicated in my language to undersatnd so in english I'm totally lost)and if we still have to delete this screenshot ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juju 2402 (talk • contribs) 3:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you meant this question directly to me: I dont know the answer as well, therefore this page to have the problem discussed. Maybe someone knows more about this trailer. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Si cela peut aider : en français, "The Trailer http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=89220 contains a copyright notice at least" se dit "La bande-annonce, au moins celle sur le site http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=89220 contient une notice de copyright". Je n'ai pas vérifié, mais si Martin H. le dit cela doit être vrai, donc il me parait difficile d'utiliser {{PD-US-no notice}}. Teofilo (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, PD-US-not renewed. http://www.copyright.gov/records/ --Thirdship (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Peyton Place. By Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation & Jerry...
- Type of Work: Motion Picture
- Registration Number / Date: RE0000237387 / 1985-02-28
- Renewal registration for: LP0000010703 / 1957-12-12
- Title: Peyton Place. By Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation & Jerry Wald Productions, Inc.
- Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH)
- Variant title: Peyton Place.
- Names: Jerry Wald Productions, Inc.
- Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
Clearly still in copyright. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, it appears the film's copyright does not apply to the trailer per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(40).jpg. I was unable to find any renewal records for the trailer. If this is deleted, that's inconsistent with an administrator's determination to keep File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(40).jpg which contains a copyright notice and comes from copyrighted movie. --Thirdship (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well put. I agree Interesting argument at Cleopatra. Under the old rules (when a copyright notice was required), if an author took part of a copyrighted work and created a derivative work and didn't copyright the latter, my understanding is that the material in the derivative work was, as you say, PD. We should be clear here for future editors that this is an original trailer, not a 2010 trailer, which would not be PD.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, copyright on the trailer was not renewed. Kameraad Pjotr 15:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
