Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/10
 |
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}
Screen shot from tv. Derivative image. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think File:Unusual Animal Behavior re Inter Species Sexual Orientation.JPG is poorly thought out. Using toddlers as models or examples of.. "inter-species sexual orientation" is a bit.. opportunistic. Im sure that the dedicated photographer can find better examples of leg humping that don't involve young, small people, thanks. Discard. -Stevertigo (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fully agree. A good candidate for speedy delete, IMO. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Neutral After reading the description, this photo does appear to illustrate something unique, but it's poor quality, a poor choice of filename (describing a dog as having an "inter species sexual orientation" is anthropomorphization at best), and the description provides little or no explanation for the behavior. The boy is not identifiable and the image does not appear to be constructed to titillate, but between being low quality and orphaned I'd let it go. @Stevertigo: Please nominate images for deletion using the normal deletion request process, not the Village Pump. This is not a speedy deletion candidate. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)- Kindly delete it. I was looking for a way to do so, but Wikimedia makes it difficult to so so. I might have uploaded it naivety when I was new to Wikipedia. Thanks for initiating. Warm Regards--Nothing is free in this world (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedied, per above. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfree interface elements. Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep I have unfree interface elements from picture removed.
.
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is the same image that this: File:A Coruña (Paseo marítimo).jpg! --HombreDHojalata (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted image with © symbol --Santosga (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A friend of me told me (in French) "t'as vu la bite qu'il a, même les prêtres irlandais n'en ont pas une aussi longue !". This clearly shows that such images are conscupicious appeals to pedopornographia, and should be deleted. Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Kept; vandal-DR by nominator to make a w:WP:POINT. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not of pertinent usage; highly low quality photo of a subject that we have 100s of. Blurpeace 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete We need something more artistic, guys. Put a bit of fantasy in self-photography. The market for those simple articles is now overflowed.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not even a good quality one Herby talk thyme 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Although the company says at one place on the web site that images may be downloaded for press usage, at another place it reserves all rights. In addition, of course, Commons is not press usage and requires a much broader license. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For press-information use it's not enough or as explanation given by the company if it wanted to release pictures on CC, or, as license per se, not free enough to be on Commons. Commons images are not used only on Wikipedia that, anyway, it's not press. Thanks god. Even if .... --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have requested the company to send me a comment howto use the pictures. The bergmoench is a new sports utility, used for mountaineering, uphill easy to carry on your back and down to roll. I think it is important to have a pic describing what it is. Anyhow; i am waiting for the comany to send me a note. BR SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added a speedy deletion request to shortcut the discussion and I will wait for a proper licence. BR SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Fantastic, thank you for all those efforts. I agree with you that we should have it. And it was a great choice: the picture is very intriguing.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 0 days
I'm looking at this, and it seems right on the edge of PD-Text. The main CD is fine, but all the logos at the bottom push the edges. Opinions?Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - logos seem de minimis, I'd be tempted by PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept per Mattbuck; {{Trademark}} added to description page. Infrogmation (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Bad image quality - fairly low res, blurry, bad lighting. I fail to see how this could be useful to any project other than how not to take photos of your genitals. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow that is pretty bad. We have many similar higher-quality alternatives, e.g. File:Vulva_and_pubic_hair.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Come on.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per GM –SJ+ 10:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Category:Hop, Bergen already exists --Frokor (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Brilliant attempt, anyway. Categorizing, sometimes, it could get complicate. But very creative, indeed. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Made into category redirect. Infrogmation (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Outside of COM:SCOPE, not used anywhere. Hard to tell what the intended purpose is, since it lacks description and categorisation. Questionable authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, also derivative of non free contentInfrogmation (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There are several photographs of this actress in the same setting. Not all are necessary and certainly none are educational. The Cleaner (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid deletion reason. --Klodl (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Commons:Sexual content. --Ankara (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment How old could the girls be? They are not minors, are they? Obelix (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Aurora Snow Born 1981 and Hannah Harper 1982. Photo from 2002. --Ankara (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks... Keep of course. :-) Obelix (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks...
- Aurora Snow Born 1981 and Hannah Harper 1982. Photo from 2002. --Ankara (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - pure fanboy material. Wikipedia should be an educational resource, not a repository of soft porn and porn industry promotional material. Peter Damian (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep educational about both actresses. All other images we have, are different to this one. Not a reason to delete. We won't delete some of the 148 images of the exterior of the statue of liberty, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a fallacious argument. Articles about the statue of liberty are educational, so it doesn't matter how many pictures from different angles that we have. Articles about pornographic 'actresses' are not generally educational. These photographs are simply promotional material for the porn industry. Peter Damian (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Articles about actors are educational, so it doesn't matter how many pictures from different angles that we have. It's not up to Peter Damian (or Commons) to make editorial decisions about articles on local wikis. Each article must be considered to have an educational value.--Ankara (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a fallacious argument. Articles about the statue of liberty are educational, so it doesn't matter how many pictures from different angles that we have. Articles about pornographic 'actresses' are not generally educational. These photographs are simply promotional material for the porn industry. Peter Damian (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepSaibo statement convinced me, definitively. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Photos of two people, one of whom has articles about them in Wikipedias in 7 languages, the other has articles about them in 11 languages. In scope. Infrogmation (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unknown person, unknown village, bad quality picture. Usable somewhere or by someone, in your opinion? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a school band - "lack of evidence" of any notability - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It costs a lot of efforts to arrive on that very stage, we know all very well. Thank you for sharing with us your fatigues. Anyway, send it back to us when you get very famous: it will be a piece of history. Momentarily is a bit unuseful.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We should create a category: shopping mall parkings by country. They will look all the same. Something scary.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete So smart looking guy and still working in cubicle-office-companies. Have a better life, man. You deserve it.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
person without notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, not in scope. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Both Popeye and this piece of art are copyrighted. No Freedom of Panorama exists for artwork in the US and this image is more than just a casual shot featuring this statue. --TheDJ (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom - no FOP in the US Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
unused collage - advertisement for a production group from Spain (?) - not notable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete My friend Colo, is a real hound. They can document their cinematographic activity far more butter than only advertising it. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Humuscollage.jpg
advertisment for a group a media people from argentine - not notable, unused - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Ditto--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE, although "Fotohumus" is a funny name. :D abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisement for an unnotable band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Good start, guys. Keep going and you will get famous. But with someone else as public relations manager. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Suspect this is not actually a Peyronies disease patient. See w:en:Talk:Peyronie's_disease#Confusing picture. Vectro (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per w:en:Talk:Peyronie's_disease#Confusing picture, misleading, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and rename - if it's not peyronies, rename it to whatever it actually is. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Lot of dicks around here. We should call an anthropologist. Material for a PHD.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Based on the description of the disease and pictures I've seen elsewhere, this image is not useful as an illustration of it, and as a plain penis photo it is redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete –SJ+ 10:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Reproduction of 2D product of the modern artist; false authorship --Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this image. After reviewing Commons:Image casebook#Murals and Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Former Soviet Union. I now agree the flickr uploader wasn't authorized to republish their photo of the mural, under Tajikistan's copyright laws. They weren't authorized to place a CC liscense on it, and I wasn't authorized to upload it here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- My thanks to User:ABF, who re-opened this discussion when I informed them I hadn't been aware of the discussion. Informing good faith nominators of nominations is important, because when they made a good faith mistake, informing them of the discussion is a mechanism for preventing them from making similar good faith mistakes in the future. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of artwork not PD nor free licensed. Uploader was unaware of problem when image uploaded; uploader now supports deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Huge swathe blurred out. Not educational. Mediocre quality anyway. 99of9 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Or you document aware of all the consequences, or you don't. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted around 90% blurred out --> not usefull at all abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't speak dutch, even If I'd like too. Very nice place, Holland, and really great people. Anyway, as far as I understood the uploader it's not the painter. And there is a strange 1965 in the description. I put the picture on your attention, buddies, may be it's a copyviol, perhaps not. It's out of my linguistic competence. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per description: Painted in 1965, Leuven. Cannot be released unless uploader is painter/heir in which case OTRS is needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete uploader seems to confuse the copyright of his photo with that of the copyright on the painting. TheDJ (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Bad license Ferbr1 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from http://sonabe.wordpress.com/2009/08/page/3/ and
http://sonabe.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/180px-cd-valsosidanses.jpg?w=180&h=178 Cameta (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
unused and unusable file - no description, the sign is unreadable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I think you could read the sign with a bit of manipulation, but agree, I don't see why this is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Not particular high resolution, not particularly well suited for educational purposes, due to the shadows and high compression. Somewhat artistic value, but not really notable in my opinion and definitely lacking in quality. Potentially recognizable person in the shot. Only in use on page of User:Max Rebo Band. All in all, I see little reason in keeping this one. --TheDJ (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. Anyway, if it's a POV, it was a great task to take the picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, only image we have illustrating that particular sexual position. Very tasteful considering its subject. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If it is so good you would have thought it would be in use somewhere. --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- No longer a valid reason, as image is quite in place as the illustration of w:Porn 2.0 as an image that is uploaded by the subject (yes that's consent btw). So scope issues seem to be settled, that leaves the fact she's "potentially recognisable" which is easily met by the fact she uploaded the photo herself to her Flickr account (as well as many other similar ones not brought to WMF), and the complaint that it is not high-rez...which I which just smirk at "This is porn! And why isn't it high-rez?!" Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, no legitimate educational value. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- No longer a valid reason, as image is quite in place as the illustration of w:Porn 2.0 as an image that is uploaded by the subject (yes that's consent btw). So scope issues seem to be settled, that leaves the fact she's "potentially recognisable" which is easily met by the fact she uploaded the photo herself to her Flickr account (as well as many other similar ones not brought to WMF), and the complaint that it is not high-rez...which I which just smirk at "This is porn! And why isn't it high-rez?!" Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Per COM:PORN. Tiptoety talk 22:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused poor quality image. We are not a host for user galleries. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- No longer a valid reason, as image is quite in place as the illustration of w:Porn 2.0 as an image that is uploaded by the subject (yes that's consent btw). So scope issues seem to be settled, that leaves the fact she's "potentially recognisable" which is easily met by the fact she uploaded the photo herself to her Flickr account (as well as many other similar ones not brought to WMF), and the complaint that it is not high-rez...which I which just smirk at "This is porn! And why isn't it high-rez?!" Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's the only image in this position in Category:Fellatio, wait until there is a higher-quality image that replaces it. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unused, poor quality. no personality release. –SJ+ 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- No longer a valid reason, as image is quite in place as the illustration of w:Porn 2.0 as an image that is uploaded by the subject (yes that's consent btw). So scope issues seem to be settled, that leaves the fact she's "potentially recognisable" which is easily met by the fact she uploaded the photo herself to her Flickr account (as well as many other similar ones not brought to WMF), and the complaint that it is not high-rez...which I which just smirk at "This is porn! And why isn't it high-rez?!" Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - derivative image (greyscale) of Flickr (no note of this). No DOB, date of photography, or subject consent available. Delete for these and above reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic in nature. It is used no where else except the user's personal userpage. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- No longer a valid reason, as image is quite in place as the illustration of w:Porn 2.0 as an image that is uploaded by the subject (yes that's consent btw). So scope issues seem to be settled, that leaves the fact she's "potentially recognisable" which is easily met by the fact she uploaded the photo herself to her Flickr account (as well as many other similar ones not brought to WMF), and the complaint that it is not high-rez...which I which just smirk at "This is porn! And why isn't it high-rez?!" Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Only image from this pov. Sufficient quality. Also a bit artistic. Please stop deletion useful pictures. The argument that it is not in use in any articles is void. It is indirectly in use; for example in de:Fellatio#Weblinks (commonscat!).
- @Stillwaterising: I made a note on the deri work. That's really no argument for deletion. Contrary to what you wrote "date of photography" is given. But even if it was not: this is not arguement for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - No subject date of birth of consent given. Still many other reasons also provided. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why a DOB? Do you also want to know the shoe size of her father and mother? --Saibo (Δ) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment DOB is needed to calcucilate the age of subjects at time of photography. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, with this argument you can delete all pictures on commons except 1% (guess). No reason to believe that anyone is not sufficiently old. --Saibo (Δ) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why a DOB? Do you also want to know the shoe size of her father and mother? --Saibo (Δ) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN. --High Contrast (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep One of the few pictures left which shows people, not in US or Israeli uniforms. Also, what Enric Naval and Saibo say. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason for deletion --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted It was hard to decide. As a result of this dr, the only conclusion is to delete this image. The image is not in use, matches COM:PORN and will not be used. There are enough "controversial" images up here on commons, this one has not got any educational sense (->SCOPE). abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The source given lists the license as "All Rights Reserved". Given that we're dealing with a clearly identifiable person here we should show some basic human dignity and heed that license, regardless of what it used to be. Additionally, the image was nominated for deletion already, and there was a consensus to delete the image already. Apparently it has since been restored for some reason. Conti|✉ 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was undeleted because of Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-06#File:POV_oral_sex.png. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
1 month old uncontested re-nomination -FASTILY 08:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very sexy woman. But, in my opinion, because she is not a personality, I presume, the picture is so low quality that it's not insertable even in "Portrait photographs of women" (that it needs a good clean, though). Anyhow, milady, do you have my phone number?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- From the Dutch I can decipher, the description says the picture is for her userpage. So maybe contact her first, so she can add it to it, if that's what she wants. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Checked her Dutch Wikipedia userpage, it states she has left Wikipedia, so yes, as for now, this picture is out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- From the Dutch I can decipher, the description says the picture is for her userpage. So maybe contact her first, so she can add it to it, if that's what she wants. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –SJ+ 10:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused quasi private file - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boards.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
see discussion --Uleli (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused logo with a long description - unusable, only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange promotion of a band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
No fair use on Commons Huib talk 21:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted image is outside our scope abf «Cabale!» 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Coat of arms for a student association. This is not "own work" and cannot be released as such. However, if it is old enough, it could be PD. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Another Coat of arms for a student association. This is not self made and cannot be released into the PD by uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Another Coat of Arms for a student association. This time, source is indicated as being "facebook", yet licensed with a "self" license. No valid source, no valid license. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
advertisement for a hotel (?) - no exif data, small, unused - out of scope (several other files of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (known??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This artist would be in scope, but the image is also on http://www.formgren.com/leif/ - would need permission via COM:OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Redundant image - almost duplicate and scaled-down version of File:Julie Delpy at SF Apple Store.jpg. This is a retouched picture from File:Julie Delpy At SF Apple Store promoting 2 Days in Paris.jpg. --Klodl (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Now universally replaced. Wknight94 talk 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Logo for a student association, not self made. Uploader states "it is our own logo, so it is allowed". The website (http://www.astatine.utwente.nl) doesn't state anything of the sort. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
the cc-by license is not valid, as the website (http://www.ihcmerwede.com/rightmenu/disclaimer/) states that it is for NC use only. However, the logo could perhaps qualify as PD-text? Can someone confirm. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Changed to PD-text. Wknight94 talk 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Reproduction of 2D product of the modern artist; false authorship --Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this image. After reviewing Commons:Image casebook#Murals and Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Former Soviet Union. I now agree the flickr uploader wasn't authorized to republish their photo of the mural, under Tajikistan's copyright laws. They weren't authorized to place a CC liscense on it, and I wasn't authorized to upload it here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
derivative work. The flickr uploader just photographed an advertisment; the flickr user is not the copyright holder of this file and he has not the right to publish it under a free C&C licence High Contrast (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
watermarked with michael@kasino-royal.de, yet licensed with self -- Deadstar (msg) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
can't find a license on the website it was taken from (www.zxzw.nl) to establish if cc-by is correct. Besides which the festival it refers to is now renamed, so this logo is only of historical value. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and re-tag as {{PD-textlogo}}. This is nothing but a few letters and a line. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Hand drawn typography, or calligraphy is not PD-text. 188.222.170.156 10:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This is not simple enough to be PD-text. Wknight94 talk 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange drawing - unusable without context - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All pictures uploaded by this guy -look at his contrib- (his self portrait is in deletion too) seem photos of book illustrations. Sort of protestant anticatholic art similar, in concept, at that one of Luther times. This one could be an allegory of Islam. So, what's the real source (the book), the real date of the works, and who is this Anito Efesio author that, apparently, it's not the uploader. If we delete this one we have to delete all the others.*
--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Here we are. Very interesting indeed. Anito Efesio was a XV century painter. All those pictures represent prophetic visions concerning the fate of the pope in modern era and they were found in a manuscrit left in heritage, in XVII century, by Michele Nostradamus. Here the references: [1]. Very interesting.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment - thanks! - if it can be identified, we should keep it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - it was identified as a work by Anito Efesio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The copyright on popeye does not expire until 2024, though some individual works may not have had their copyright expired renewed, no proof for work has been presented. TheDJ (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The author died in 1938, over 70 years ago, so the copyright has expired. Handige Harrie (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- In Europe yes, not in America, where the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are hosted. All material on Commons has to be free in the United States AND in the country of origin. This image is not. TheDJ (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I remember the talk we had on #wikimedia-commons about Popeye's pictures. They should be Delete deleted as copyvio. --Diego Grez return fire 21:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete US law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Work of Segar is protected under US copyright law until 2024, unless not renewed (no evidence of that is presented). This is likely also a derivative of Segar's work, so might be under copyright even longer. --TheDJ (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Segar died in 1938, so this picture is in public domain in the EU, USA and Australia. The template says that the image isn't in public domain in other countries, but it is in public domain in, for example, the European Union. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Segar works were created before US copyright law was changed. Thus he falls under the old rules, whereby works (created between 1923 and 1963) are protected for 95 years after its initial copyright. See also http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm TheDJ (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Segar died in 1938, so this picture is in public domain in the EU, USA and Australia. The template says that the image isn't in public domain in other countries, but it is in public domain in, for example, the European Union. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely that this logo is ineligible for copyright. Design is more than just fonts or simple shapes, and the shape of the state of Tennessee (which makes the logo highly recognisable) adds significant complexity to the design. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recognise Tennessee. Where in that is it? I see a U and a T -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, the cross on the "T". It's shaped like the state of Tennessee. Sorry, I forget that I'm a Tennessean so it is more apparent to me. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Uploaded on en.wiki under fairuse, delete on Commons per nom. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Challenged on groups of COM:SCOPE at undeletion requests. I personally think it's marginally useful as a depiction of artistic photography, but it's not by a well-known artist or anything and I wouldn't mind seeing it go. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Opinions
[edit]
Keep, "I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted" is a retarded reason to delete a file.Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)- Let me be clear: I don't want to delete this file, I want to keep it. I'm listing it here because a lot of people wanted to keep it deleted in the undeletion discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake, re-voted at the bottom of the page now that Scope is met by inclusion in WP. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Only used on the user page of the first keep vote. Not encyclopedic, not in use, and not within scope. Scope says that we are not a host for user page galleries. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I can;t see any possible use for this. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep notable picture as example of what got speedy deleted on the black weekend in may 2010. ;) - no, seriously! Furthermore it is a example of artistic partially nude photography in front of graffiti. Maybe someone will upload the uncropped picture if needed. --Saibo (Δ) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I have to agree with Matt this time. Where/In what context would we use it? --DieBuche (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The original deletion was hasty, but that doesn't mean the image is worth keeping. We have over 100 images of women wearing bras and multiple hundreds of images of graffiti. The intersection of the two is not particularly useful. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is a mediocre image of no particular educational value. There are a million images like this on Flickr. Jehochman (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, no real educational value, not in scope. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Kaldari. Tiptoety talk 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly outside of project scope. Blurpeace 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't really care either way. It is a low quality image of something that can not really be called notable art. And even if stripping the notable part, I see little artistic value that we could use in our collection. Unlike File:Leaning_on_Barn_Doors.png, which i consider to be one of the best images in our collection of nude photographs. TheDJ (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Ufff, very small image. No educational purpose that can justify keeping such a low-quality-image. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, non-notable. –SJ+ 10:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Effectively an unused personal photo and a rather poor quality one at that. It qualifies for deletion on existing agreed scope policy. (Though as Saibo points out it does stand as a commentary on Chairman Jim and the Cleanup Cadre.) --Simonxag (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low quality, not realistically useful, and seeing this uploaded as PNG just makes me mad. --Dschwen (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative image but not marked as such. Delete for above reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, in an article for which better images will definitely be attacked by the Jimbo-youth. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep To me this photo seems to have some degree of artistic quality - for example, the subject is posed, there is alignment with a graffiti background, the image is divided up by the hanging chain, there is a rather nice use of color and so on. Even though the resolution could be better, I don't think that should be a liability, because the resources used are also proportional to the size - so the lower the resolution, the less we should expect from a photo. Wnt (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The commons scope is generally a good policy, but it could use some elaboration on the matter of user-generated artworks. My opinion is that in cases like this, the uploader (and preferably the author) should be given a fixed period of time in which to document the artistic process behind the photograph. A user generated artwork which explains how it was made clearly has educational merit and therefore would clearly be within scope. Wnt (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, image is now the sole illustration on the WP page w:Porn 2.0, as it is the perfect illustration of the concept. Please see its use in the article, and note that Scope images are now easily met. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't get why the original image on flicker was butchered into this cropped, downsampled piece of crap. The original would be a better illustration in any case. --Dschwen (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Copy of undeletion discussion
[edit]
For reference purposes, a copy of the undeletion discussion:
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. To the ones that want to see this image, i accessed it by google cache, and it linked to this flickr image
I´only have to ask why was this file deleted? This occurred on this last "shotgun approach" to some content seen as pornographic, and with the justification that it was "Out of scope". I ask if was out of scope, what was making in the categories women and with graffitis, not to speak of the possible categorization to lingerie, people with guitars and, most importantly urban decay, and\or subcategorie of photography, dedicated to photos using as subject people on urban decayed settings and its use for several different artistic approaches (see this site for a example). To last, even flickr doesnt filter this image. For all of the above i request that this file is undeleted. Tm (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Support This deletion appears to be out-of-process even by the standards of Commons:Sexual content. The image contains no depiction of a simulated or actual sexual act, and it is far from being "explicit sexual content". Black Falcon (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)- Support No consensus to delete--Ankara (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. This one's a bit difficult - just looking at it, you're not sure what it is or what it's good for (who is this woman, why do we care if she's posing in front of graffiti, where's the educational value?) However, it becomes clearer when I visit User:Max Rebo Band that this is from his upload collection of "tasteful nudes", intended to illustrate nude (or mostly nude) artistic photography, which it does. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't a very good example of tasteful nudes (some people might say indecently clothed, but clothed she is), but deleting images because they might show you to be hypocritical prude is outright censorship. Support undeletion, Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. No valid reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose undelete as just plain out of scope. We delete personal images of non-notable people all the time. No, I don't consider this pornographic, but it's just plain useless. Wknight94 talk 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)- Support undeletion and relisting for regular deletion process. I think the image probably deserves to be deleted, per Wknight94, but it wasn't appropriate for a speedy. –SJ+ 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you can, please either identify where this image was previously used for an educational purpose on a Wikimedia project or otherwise identify articles which we could reasonably expect this image to contribute to. Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Sweet humpin' lord, how the hell did this get deleted in the first place? This image is about as racy as what you would find in an old Sears catalog under the women's lingerie section. If someone still thinks it should go, do a regular DR for it after it's been restored. Tabercil (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose undeletion. Not pornographic, but unused and no conceivable encyclopedic use. Commons is not a dumping ground for random images. Sandstein (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- weak Oppose undeletion. While not strictly pornographic, pretty clearly the main (and only) purpose of the image is to titillate from what I can see. Casliber (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Not acceptable nor encyclopedic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support if image was in use, otherwise Neutral - does not appear to be especially useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not about the (non-existing) sexual content, but simply out of scope. Where would it be used?--DieBuche (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. No legitimate educational value. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Restoring and sending to deletion review at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman Posing in Abandoned Site.png. This image will probably end up getting deleted, but I think this will make everyone happy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept Again hard to decide. Even if most of the "votes" are tending to delete this image, this is not a vote, and the arguments are valid enough to keep the image. The best reason is the encyclopedic use in "Porn 2.0", and furthermore this does not match COM:PORN. This is maybe the first time in my life, that I decided to Keep an image with nude persons... abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Very low quality unused image of common subject Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. While it is low quality and presently unused, it's in-scope as plausibly educational. The point of COM:NOPENIS is to prevent the upload of [n]ew files of low resolution or poor quality (emphasis mine), but this file was uploaded thirteen years ago. We appear to have the relevant permissions, so I see no policy-based reasons to delete this file. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I’m nominating it because it’s crap, not because there’s boobs in it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Still seems reasonable to keep to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s 400x300 and blurry! How is that a good image? Dronebogus (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Still seems reasonable to keep to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m nominating it because it’s crap, not because there’s boobs in it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. A lot of users agree for deletion, and there is no evident usage of the photo. Ruthven (msg) 08:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- bump. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was in the category speedy again with the reason:
Image of bound woman without indication of consent or age information. 10/10 on original COPINE scale (sadistic, implies pain)
changed it in a normal DR. Huib talk 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Opinions
[edit]
- Keep Disruptive speedy-tagging by SWR; in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no personality concerns, not pornography, illustrative and in use on projects. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Woman is not identifiable and the author is a "20something tech geek"[2] strongly suggesting to me this his sub is 18+. However I suggest contacting the author to confirm age. Lack of age information should not be a criterion for speedy deletion unless the subject is obviously a minor. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It should not even matter if she was his daughter. Spanking one's children is a crime in Sweden, but perfectly fine in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep While I am unsure about the "encyclopedic" value of this image, in the current environment we aren't going to have a truly objective discussion about this image. Better to keep it, then revisit the question some time later. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see UDR ... is there a limit on DRs an image can get in a time span? Or can the next one be put up right after the keep decision? --Saibo (Δ) 22:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- My general impression is that a DR can be filed right after a UDR, but a DR can't be filed right after another DR. However, Huib should have posted or linked the UDR for reference purposes, since it's pertinent. Instead, I will do it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. This sounds rational. --Saibo (Δ) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- My general impression is that a DR can be filed right after a UDR, but a DR can't be filed right after another DR. However, Huib should have posted or linked the UDR for reference purposes, since it's pertinent. Instead, I will do it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not in use in mainspace anywhere. Delete per nom. Vaginal lip is visible. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- "not in use" is no argument. Nevertheless it's in indirect use. See de:BDSM#Weblinks. Comment on "lip is visible": yes, and even a hand with five fingers! Shocking! --Saibo (Δ) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is in use in en:Erotic spanking, en:Erotic furniture, and is the only image in en:Male dominance (BDSM). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Extremely erotic in nature. Plus is the person being spanked a minor? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to be funny? <irony>Of course it's a minor - apparently even still going in the kindergarten. I guess it's even a child of a racial minority!</irony> --Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- No I'm not tring to be funny. If it IS a minor than it falls within the boundaries of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (18 U.S.C. § 2251) which states "producers of sexually explicit material need to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records.". I know Commons has a policy against children used in such images. Definite reason for deletion. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to be funny? <irony>Of course it's a minor - apparently even still going in the kindergarten. I guess it's even a child of a racial minority!</irony> --Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Did someone tried to see where this image was taken? It was taken in Frolicon 2008 "an adult science-fiction convention held every Easter weekend in Atlanta, GA." (see the gallery where it is inserted on flickr). In this fair, "Parties and certain events will require proof of age" and more importantly "You must be 21 to enter and play" on parties. So this image is taken of a non-minor and willingly participant of this show. Also not obscene using Miller test. Tm (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- This obscene law has not been enforced because it awaits being declared unconstitutional; but I think it applies to sexually explicit material, not a hand on a butt. But if it did, then indirect evidence that the model entered an age-restricted area would not nearly be enough for them. Wnt (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per the proposed Commons:Sexual_content#Other_laws, there is consensus that we do not require observation of section 2257. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason for deletion --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Being that this woman's vagina is visible, and the image is meant to be erotic in nature, I see that the phrase "lascivious display of genitalia" would apply and this image would indeed be considered pornographic by US law. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well of course this is pornographic. It's also legal (and useful) for Commons to distribute. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Copy of undeletion request
[edit]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png
[edit]
Please undelete File:Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png. It was used in three articles in en.wiki and undo the unlink actions. --Saibo (Δ) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly support this suggestion. The deletion is highly questionable.Nemissimo (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undelete all. Abuse of power to delate, no consensus on Commons .--Ankara (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. Even if we construct a specific set of rules for forms of porn to be deleted, it will almost certainly need to focus on areas of the body shown. Specifically targeting BDSM images to the exclusion of other fetishes and paraphilias is a bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. Abuse of power, no consensus or deletion request. --Dezidor (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No way does this fall within acceptable under policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which policy? --Dezidor (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of our policies given to us by the WMF, we are not a hosting gallery for uneducational material, including porn. There are plenty of other places for you to upload your porn. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- My porn? Are you serious? That material was educational and it was used in articles. ---> Claim "out of scope" is obviously invalid. --Dezidor (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of our policies given to us by the WMF, we are not a hosting gallery for uneducational material, including porn. There are plenty of other places for you to upload your porn. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which policy? --Dezidor (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, at least until there is a content rating system. --JN466 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Undelete. The "Jimbo rule" is based on COM:SCOPE. COM:SCOPE says that images that are in use are in scope. It's not up to us to make editorial decisions about image use on local wikis. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per JN466. Wknight94 talk 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Worthless, not notable, not educational. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously it was being used educationally in the articles it was illustrating, as an illustration of BDSM. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I would like to comment but cannot view the image under consideration. Powers (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Obviously useful for illustrating bondage and sexual spanking, assuming the quality and size are up to snuff, which I can't tell because I'm not an admin. Powers (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion and nomination for standard deletion process. Should not have been speedied. (but doesn't seem very educational or notable.) –SJ+ 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Info @LtPowers: thumbnail from google. - Info @"not educational": I repeat: It was used in three articles. --Saibo (Δ)
- If you can, please either identify where this image was previously used for an educational purpose on a Wikimedia project or otherwise identify articles which we could reasonably expect this image to contribute to. Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- previous usage especially for Gmaxwell. --Saibo (Δ) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Gmaxwell, if you can, please don't ignore indentation. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. File was in use and, in the absence of a copyright violation or file corruption, should not have been deleted without a full DR. Black Falcon (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: the descriptions of this as "porn" are ridiculous. I, personally, would be inclined to restore it. But, clearly, we are in the middle of a large, unruly discussion about Commons' scope, and this falls in the controversial gray zone. It seems to me that we should be accumulating a list of images that are useful, are likely to be seen as "sexual", and whose status can only be worked out once we have consensus on larger issues. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support - In use, so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above. 74.197.37.245 04:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Black Falcon, in use. feydey (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. No legitimate educational value. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Clear consensus to restore. Legitimately used in en:Erotic_furniture, en:Male_dominance_(BDSM), en:Erotic_spanking, en:Spanking. There are no plans for a "content rating system". Dcoetzee (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Let's assume good faith here about consent, and since it's in use it's in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bogus license - a 1945 photograph cannot be published before 1917. Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have changed the permission type to PD-Russia-2008.
- Bogus license againt. A 1945 photograph cannot be published before 1941. Choosing licenses at random doesn't make the images free of rights. --Eusebius (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Filename suggests this is intended to illustrate physical traits of Chilean men (e.g. hazel eyes). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
image used in scam 181.212.74.9 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see how the use of a picture of a man's face in a scam, if it happened, is relevant to whether it's a useful image. Indeed, if the scam were identified, that might possibly make this image more useful. However, it's not such a great portrait that I would object if the closing admin decided to delete it, now that it's not in use. Say something about the scam, though! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I too would like to hear more about this scam. —holly {chat} 18:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence that it is in the public domain (date = circa 1940, no author). Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Source is indeed USSR and finding the author is not feasible at all. The photo is not original but reproduced. Please advise why {{PD-Russia-2008}} and {{PD-old}} are not applicable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because we have no information about either the author (we don't know when he died) or the first publication (we don't know whether it was anonymous or not). In the absence of necessary information, these files must be considered copyrighted, for they are by default. --Eusebius (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that it is in the public domain (date = ca 1933, no author, source country is probably USSR). Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Source is indeed USSR and finding the author is not feasible at all. The photo is not original but reproduced. Please advise why {{PD-Russia-2008}} and {{PD-old}} are not applicable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because we have no information about either the author (we don't know when he died) or the first publication (we don't know whether it was anonymous or not). In the absence of necessary information, these files must be considered copyrighted, for they are by default. --Eusebius (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that it is in the public domain (date = ca 1935, no author, source country is probably USSR). Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Source is indeed USSR and finding the author is not feasible at all. The photo is not original but reproduced. Please advise why {{PD-Russia-2008}} and {{PD-old}} are not applicable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because we have no information about either the author (we don't know when he died) or the first publication (we don't know whether it was anonymous or not). In the absence of necessary information, these files must be considered copyrighted, for they are by default. --Eusebius (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not the least sign of PD status or free license release (pic from 1986, author unknkown). Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Plus all other photographs from the same uploader. Images from 1930-1950 are clear not covered by {{PD-RusEmpire}} --Justass (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Bulgakov Sergey.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bulgakov Sergey N.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Congress of RSHD Paris 1937 Bulgakov S.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Prot.Sergiy Bulgakov.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Georgy Zhukov.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:G.K.Zhukov & D. Eisenhower.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bulgakov Sergey.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zhukov G.K. 1945.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zhukov G.K.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zhukov G.K. Akt o bezogovorochnoy kapitulyacii 1945.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zhukov G.K. on command post.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete I didn't look at them all, but we have one photo of Eisenhower claimed to be prior to 1917 when it must have been taken around 1941 (he has one star). Looks like uploader doesn't understand process. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No sign that it was first published in Russia before 1917. Eusebius (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are right. I have changed the permission type to PD-Russia-2008.
- No sign that the author died before 1941, or that it was published anonymously. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Stifle: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Men_A.V._Chernogolovka_1986.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio from http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/98913770/Bongarts TaraO (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't notice but the watermark has been stripped and it is the actual author and copyright holder who put it up, completely correctly. Slaja (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Gettyimages und PD? Kragenfaultier (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This image is owned by the author who put it up. He authorized its use online, it is his right to do so. Slaja (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, I don't understand User:Slaja's comments. Perhaps I'm being dumb, but the image was made by Christof Koepsel. The uploader was User:MatthiasMouse, whose only contribution to Commons is this image and who names Getty as the source. Unless, somehow, User:MatthiasMouse is in fact Christof Koepsel, this is copyvio. Even if he is, I think Getty would have rights. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Info PD-self removed; the tag was added by user Slaja for whatever reason … --:bdk: 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- "User:MatthiasMouse is in fact Christof Koepsel." This is correct, and what I have been trying to explain. Through the website I was able to contact Mr. Koepsel and determine that it is his work. He explained to me that this is his work which he took while he was working for Getty images. As I also explained above, only he has the ability to strip the Getty images watermark. Once again User:MatthiasMouse is Christof Koepsel. He has authority to publish his images privately he took while working for Getty/Bongarts. I am positive I spoke with him through an e-mail conversation because it was a official contact email which I found through gettyimages.com. I added PDself because he obviously forgot to. I would publish the emails if I could but this is a violation of privacy. Slaja (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- If someone here could explain how you can strip two encrypted watermarks from a getty/bongarts image without having been the author? Slaja (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, C. Koepsel can use Commons:OTRS … --:bdk: 21:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The bottom line is that the image appears on a Getty site with their copyright notice. That's unlikely if, in fact, Koepsel took the image privately. Also, if User:MatthiasMouse is Christof Koepsel, then let him appear here to say that and to explain why Getty doesn't have rights. Otherwise, it remains a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. otherwise: COmmons:OTRS Polarlys (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont have proof of this Picture .....Because its Mine --Rahul Kumar Choubey 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Something wrong with me but I didn't understand --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to be an own work of the uploader (note that the deletion request was started by the uploader), and has been tagged as PD-self since upload. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, bogus deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Carl Bohnen died 1951, not PD till 2022. sугсго 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. U.S. work, copyright not renewed. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Image was painted in 1937, no apparent evidence of publication. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Public portrait, painted the year sitter ended his term as the Governor of Minnesota. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Am I missing some factor which means that the usual rules for publication (as outlined at w:WP:PD#Artworks) don't apply? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- That link is not correct for pre-1978 statues on public display. Anyway, this painting would have been unveiled at some public occasion, there would have been photos of the sitter with the portrait, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out to me that I missed the footnote from COM:FOP#United States which clears this up. Sorry for wasting your time. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as Pieter Kuiper --Starscream (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of File:Kästner-Passage.JPG via File:Erich Kaestner cropped.jpg, both of which are possibly not allowed under Panoramafreiheit, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. --cmadler (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think this one is more clearly an impermissible derivative image than the other (which was just cropped). In this case it is cropped, the border removed, and the image is converted to black and white. cmadler (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there's a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of panoramafreiheit is allowed (the law says: Pictures may be used for any purpose). Article 62 just sais that it is not allowed to change the work itself. As we're not doing that, there's no problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps our explanation of Panoramafreiheit needs to be changed, as it states "Still, the right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder. (§ 62)" (emphasis added). cmadler (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, that might be a bit missleading. I'll have a second look into the law to make sure it really only applies to the work itself. I clearly assume so, as we wouldn't be able to upload pictures taken under panoramafreiheit laws at all, as commons requires all images to be free for any use (including making derivatives of them). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've crosschecked a bit. According to the text, It would seem that I was right, but on an earlier discussion in the german copyright discussion thread the specialists do not agree. Some say that you can do whatever you want. In their view, the reason for the panoramafreiheit laws is that it is possible to document and use the public space. Others argue that the intention of the law was (only) to make it easier for photograps of public places and streets to be published at all, without the need to ask every architect along the street. I'm in favor of the first view, as for instance switzerland formulates the equivalent of §62 as "it's not allowed to copy works of architecture in such a way that the copy may be used for the same purpose as the original" (translation by me).
- So, it's really not a simple answer, but I'd say keep as long as there's no clear source on how the law was intended. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, that might be a bit missleading. I'll have a second look into the law to make sure it really only applies to the work itself. I clearly assume so, as we wouldn't be able to upload pictures taken under panoramafreiheit laws at all, as commons requires all images to be free for any use (including making derivatives of them). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps our explanation of Panoramafreiheit needs to be changed, as it states "Still, the right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder. (§ 62)" (emphasis added). cmadler (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there's really a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of Panoramafreiheit is allowed. It is exactly this case. Es ist nach den deutschen Gesetzvorschriften zugelassen. See: Commons:Freedom of panorama - Germany It is possible by § 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (the most comprehensive German copyright law act) to take pictures of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. Keep it!--85.130.44.190 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I remove the tag for the deletion request seems to be closed.--85.130.13.172 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- And I've reverted that. It's not up to you, especially as your edits suggests that you are the uploader.
- By the way, what is missing from this file and from the complete derivation chain from which this file is derived, is a credit of the original author of the Kästner portrait. I've asked the uploader of the very first version for that. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Requested feedback at Commons:Freedom of panorama. This is a difficult question with great implications for policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Derivative works in the context of freedom of panorama means derivative work of the original (i.e. a building that is made as a derivative work of a building), and not a derivative work of a picture of the original. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of File:Kästner-Passage.JPG which is possibly not allowed under Panoramafreiheit, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. --cmadler (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, alas. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure about this one. Does just cropping a photo create a derivative work? If someone were to take a photo that was closely framed around the publicly-displayed image, that would seem to be acceptable under Panoramafreiheit, does cropping really make a difference? I feel a lot more confident that the other image (black and white, with the border removed) is clearly a derivative work, but I'm dubious about this one, I just wanted to raise the issue and get some opinions. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there's a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of panoramafreiheit is allowed (the law says: Pictures may be used for any purpose). In this case, it would even have been possible to take a whole new picture with just the face in it. Article 62 just sais that it is not allowed to change the work itself. As we're not doing that, there's no problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps our explanation of Panoramafreiheit needs to be changed, as it states "Still, the right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder. (§ 62)" (emphasis added). cmadler (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. There's really a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of Panoramafreiheit is allowed. Es ist nach den deutschen Gesetzvorschriften zugelassen und erlaubt. See: Commons:Freedom of panorama - Germany It is possible by § 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (the most comprehensive German copyright law act) to take pictures of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. Keep it!--85.130.44.190 19:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Requested feedback at Commons:Freedom of panorama. This is a difficult question with great implications for policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Disclaimer -- I don't read German, so this is based on experience and translation.
- We are confusing three different types of derivative work here.
- (1) Some direct derivatives -- a new cast of a sculpture, or a copy of a building -- are not permitted without license from the creator. This is the aspect that the sentence quoted above addresses.
- (2) A work created under Panoramafreiheit, which is a derivative work and is permitted. This includes reproduction by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography.
- (3) A work (such as the subject of this debate) which is derivative of a work in category (2). This is also permitted, provided, of course, that the license for the category (2) work permits it.
- In response to Clindberg, I note that this image would certainly be permitted under Panoramafreiheit if it were the original image and not a crop. As I note above, you may, in Germany, photograph a public photograph or paint a public painting under Panoramafreiheit. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. I don't see that type of clause in the (English translation of) German law, so this may well be OK. The original upload was actually a straight crop, and later had its perspective fixed to essentially make it seem like a direct, head-on shot. Same disclaimer for me -- I can't read German either, and don't have any practical experience with their copyright environment, so I may just be applying some U.S.-style prejudices here. Still seems a bit wrong to me, but by the letter of that law, it does seem OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- To add on, per my view above, this image is a derivative of a photograph of a copy of the copyrighted 2D artwork (that is on the wall of building), rather than the derivative of a photograph of the building itself. The crux of the matter here is the subject of the image. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, remember this is Germany, not the USA or the UK and we need to adjust our thinking for German law, which reads (in translation):
- "Article 59 (1) It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies."
- It seems clear to me, therefore, that you can reproduce this work, notwithstanding its copyright. You can photograph it, sketch it, make postcards of it, whatever -- even paint a copy on another wall. I don't see how we can reach any other conclusion. "Works" covers everything -- this is certainly a "work". The fact that this image is a crop and perspective correction of the original photograph is irrelevant -- such edits are a common part of photography.
- Article 62 is quoted above as not permitting this, but we need to read the whole article, which certainly permits -- at (3) -- the creation of a derivative work at a different scale by photography:
- "Article 62 (1) Where the use of a work is permissible under the provisions of this Section, no alteration may be made to the work. Article 39 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis.
- (2)(omitted, not relevant)
- (3) With respect to works of fine art and photographic works, conversion to a different scale and other alterations of the work shall be permissible to the extent required by the method of reproduction."
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Aye, you are right. Germany does provide FoP for all works, even 2D works of art, permanently installed in the public, provided the works are not unauthorized reproductions. The case laws in http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/grassofa-pp.html (read via Google translate) seem to support this. I do have to ask though: is this painting on the wall a derivative of a photograph (which we would then have to consider if the painting is an unauthorized derivative). Jappalang (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have asked the photographer and uploader of the very first shot of this wall-"painting" about the painter or other source information, but he didn't know. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Aye, you are right. Germany does provide FoP for all works, even 2D works of art, permanently installed in the public, provided the works are not unauthorized reproductions. The case laws in http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/grassofa-pp.html (read via Google translate) seem to support this. I do have to ask though: is this painting on the wall a derivative of a photograph (which we would then have to consider if the painting is an unauthorized derivative). Jappalang (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, remember this is Germany, not the USA or the UK and we need to adjust our thinking for German law, which reads (in translation):
Kept. Avi (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
