Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Plaque installed in 1993, no known FOP in Syria, I'm afraid it is copyrightable. Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Per Law No. 12/2001 Arab Republic of Syria, Article 25: Copyrights of photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work. And Article 26: All unprotected works or works with expired protection periods according to the stipulations of the law herein shall fall in the public domain. link.--Ankara (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Translation: Eusebius, please look around before nominating. Noted, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's taken from http://www.globalcaching.nl, it's not self made, and uploader cannot release it into PD. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Geocache Submitter.PNG, this is a screenshot of Geocaching software. Unlikely the uploader holds the copyright to it. Invalid license for both these files. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Non-free screenshot: Web site
Change from speedy which read "only use for owohoo.com is not a proper permission" --KTo288 (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Disclaimer at http://owohoo.com/ states that "All owohoo content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license." which is Commons compatiable.KTo288 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)- CommentYou're right, the license is fine; but is the logo of a twitter copy in scope?--DieBuche (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Was only thinking within the terms of the wording of the speedy nom. No article on the clone at wikipedia yet, I guess scope would depend on how significant the site becomes and if it becomes notable in wikipedia terms for its own article.KTo288 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, let's just keep it, maybe it becomes relevant one day. DR withdrawn--DieBuche (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Was only thinking within the terms of the wording of the speedy nom. No article on the clone at wikipedia yet, I guess scope would depend on how significant the site becomes and if it becomes notable in wikipedia terms for its own article.KTo288 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
DR withdrawn--DieBuche (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work; looks like a screenshot to me. –Tryphon☂ 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes can you please delete this pic. Phrasia (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. If the uploader thinks it is too ... Herby talk thyme 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Private image, unused. So out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete No apparent purpose.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Inclined to agree and happy not to extend the process Herby talk thyme 18:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused obsolete template --DieBuche (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It is still transcluded by User:Fpiraneo/gallery and User:Kumar83/monobook.js. — Jeff G. ツ 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen: Unused template: Do not undelete without prior discussion at COM:GEO. Thanks.
out of scope, cat birthday party collage? i think. Also uncategorized malo (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete In my opinion, Commons it's not a shopwindow for photoshop schooling attempt. Unless, the resulting work, is useful. But I'm open to any favorable argument. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've notified the user in nl.wiki, maybe he will respond. Trycatch (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Creator accepts deletion request Ctxppc (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, uncategorized, no description malo (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -Nard the Bard 01:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio of http://www.kennysia.com/images/photos/20060822-9.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
no description, unused file, artistic image, no category, I believe this is out of scope malo (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete At the moment, I cannot see how and where to use it. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
self promotion, unused, uncategorized image, out of scope malo (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If we need a model/actor/celebrity we will call you. My word.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
some norwegian dude drinking a beer on a rocky beach, unused, uncategorized, out of scope malo (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Umf.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, band photo malo (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yo!--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope personal image, unused, uncategorized malo (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete One of the best, to begin the day.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope personal image, humility in aviator shades? malo (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
poor quality, out of scope, band photo malo (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Good that kids are busy in creative activities, anyway. Advanced in music, perhaps, but still a lot to learn about photography. And Commons. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, silly joke image, out of scope malo (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete 04:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Category: kindergarden jokes. Come on. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope band photo, self promo malo (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Mediatics? With such a presentation? Are you sure?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
own request-upload by mistake-image contains non-free logo --Quahadi (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted uploaders request abf «Cabale!» 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This image has no educational value by its own admission, and therefore falls outside of the project scope. RobertL (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Very bad quality image, useless for articles. Denniss (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We don't even know what it is--DieBuche (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, so blurred.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
joke image, no source for image inside a jar, out of scope malo (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not the same scope as our.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
someone's notes, uncategorized, unused, I believe this is out of scope and unuseable malo (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom abf «Cabale!» 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
someone's notes, uncategorized, unused, I believe this is out of scope and unuseable malo (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete probably a copyvio as well--DieBuche (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
poor quality image, so much so I think it is undistinguishable as to who it really is, unused, uncategorized malo (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred. Fortunately, perhaps. Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
band promo photo, out of scope malo (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion. Not illustrative. Bad times for being a band, as far as I see from the tons of boy-band pics uploaded on Commons. I've noticed, particularly, that just boys are uploading here. Or girls are not interested in music, or they don't form bands, or they don't need promotion, or they don't know Commons, or we don't delete any picture of girl-bands and, when uploaded, they are already or immediately categorized. Interesting.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
band self promotion malo (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion. Only. Why all those bands, in their promos, pretend to be nasty and scary? It should work the other way round. That's why they need promotion, may be.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Motopark (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Also source is "photobucket". -Nard the Bard 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no permission -- malo (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, source appears now to be a different image. — Jeff G. ツ 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from a copyrighted TV show. fetchcomms☛ 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No year mentioned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
no description, no category, out of scope? malo (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The woman is Karin Ström, a swedish singer. She has an entry on enWiki [1]. The point is that the file is without source so, I suppose, it's impossible to verify if the uploader is the real copyright holder of the picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep zero tineye hits. -Nard the Bard 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Giorgiomonteforti - no source to verify. That TinEye doesn't have it is no reason to keep. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - now described, categorized, and used in two projects. The uploader created the subject's page on enwp and has so far uploaded 2 pictures for it. — Jeff G. ツ 23:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
babble text, serves no purpose, out of scope malo (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- First you mark the copy with appropriate licensing and description as a duplicate, then nominate the other one for deletion. Keep this file is an example of mid-20th century art marketing for a famous regional artist in the midwest.[2] for origins of paper. -Nard the Bard 00:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Source given is photobucket. No proof of free licence. -Nard the Bard 02:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Ask de:Benutzer:CdaMVvWgS about it, he is the original uploader (I just moved it here from dewiki). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please use CommonsHelper for such moves in the future. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 00:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- This was done way before there was anything called CommonsHelper. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please use CommonsHelper for such moves in the future. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 00:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader wrote ":Hi there, all images in the Nauru section have permission to be used as PD. I got the permission a while ago by some kind users of www.nr (which unfortunately doesn't exist anymore). Greetings -- CdaMVvWgS 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"[3] on enwp, which survives today in section en:User talk:CdaMVvWgS#Nauru_images. I wrote of this discussion in that section. — Jeff G. ツ 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
File:5406_-_Give_a_hand_against_homophobia_-_L'amore_spiazza,_Pavia_16_May_2010_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto.jpg
[edit]Derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 10:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Such a work may not be subject to copyright, since there is no "author" who can claim authorship. This is the same status as anonymous graffiti-art. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Giovanni (G.). It seems that different people, participating to a public protest, have stuck their hands with paint and left the handprint on the canvas. It has no authorship for me.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- That would make it a collective work then, which is also protected by copyrights. –Tryphon☂ 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Well, Tryphon, you are very meticulous and you are right to be such. Copyright it's a long sharp knife and we don't grasp the handle. Other do. So it's better to be cautious. But, in my view, it's just a protest banner.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is a protest banner indeed. If you check the other images in the Category:Give us a hand against homophobia (Pavia, 2010), you will se it while it is been created. Several anonymous passers-by contributed to it. Even if we admitted that someone wanted to claim authorship, how could s/he substantiate his/her claim? Can s/he prove s/he was a part of the collective work? And at the reverse, can the association leading the protest show written waiving of the intellectual property from the people who contributed? No it cannot. Furthermore, is printing one's hand haphazardly, intellectual creation? In my impression, this image is simply not eligible for copyright. This is my two cents... --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If there were an guiding hand to this creation, I would accept a claim of copyright, but a number of "anonymous passers-by" added their hands without direction. Each small part was sub-copyrighable and no one has a claim on the whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia is in the public domain; a number of anonymous (pseudonymous) passers-by added their contribution to articles, each small contribution is sub-copyrightable (cc-by-sa) and no one has a claim on the whole?
But seriously, it would most likely be considered a collective work, protected during 70 years after creation; very much like anonymous works are protected 70 years after publication in the EU. –Tryphon☂ 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)- If the additions added to Wikipedia really were all sub-copyrightable, then I might agree with the comparison. But they aren't; virtually all articles have large chunks of text added at some point that were copyrightable in and of themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia is in the public domain; a number of anonymous (pseudonymous) passers-by added their contribution to articles, each small contribution is sub-copyrightable (cc-by-sa) and no one has a claim on the whole?
Kept. Reading through the discussion, I think most folks feel comfortable with this image here. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This image debunked at [4] Kahuroa (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that it is bunk is not a reason to delete. The referenced site uses it as an example of bunk:
- “Lest it be supposed that no portraits of Te Kooti are known, three pictures purporting to be portraits, published at various times, are reproduced here, though all are as unlike Te Kooti himself, as they are unlike one another. They are reproduced as a record, however, to show how his person has been misrepresented as well as his personality; also in the hope that they may bring a true portrait to light.”
- We should keep it so that future writers will have it available for similar purposes. I will add a note to the image description. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well I have changed my mind now. I agree it does make sense to keep this file with a note as to its dubiousness, which gives it historical value of a kind. Otherwise it would probably only be uploaded again in all innocence. Maybe we can just withdraw the deletion request? Kahuroa (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn per nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This image has been debunked at [5] It is not a depiction of Te Kooti Rikirangi. Kahuroa (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
*
Delete as nominator. I was the original uploader in good faith back in Feb 2007 - but it is not right to keep an image which has been debunked as not the person it claims to be. The JPS - the Journal of The Polynesian Society - (JPS 55 ) is a respected academic journal which has printed leading research in Māori and Polynesian matters for over a century. Kahuroa (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
File:TeKootiCalvert.jpg
- Keep I have the same comment here as at the one above:
- The fact that it is bunk is not a reason to delete. The referenced site uses it as an example of bunk:
- “Lest it be supposed that no portraits of Te Kooti are known, three pictures purporting to be portraits, published at various times, are reproduced here, though all are as unlike Te Kooti himself, as they are unlike one another. They are reproduced as a record, however, to show how his person has been misrepresented as well as his personality; also in the hope that they may bring a true portrait to light.”
- We should keep it so that future writers will have it available for similar purposes. I will add a note to the image description. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I have changed my mind now. I agree it does make sense to keep this file with a note as to its dubiousness, which gives it historical value of a kind. Otherwise it would probably only be uploaded again in all innocence. Maybe we can just withdraw the deletion request? Kahuroa (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn per nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably copyvio Smooth_O (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. It appears to be a model, which would be subject to copyright and have an ID in the lower left corner. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This banner is unnecessarily disruptive and divisive; not in the best interests of building an encyclopedia. — Jeff G. ツ 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - It is not Commons' place to decide what other local projects (especially large ones with capable editors) may or may not display. If it's an issue, that should be decided at enwiki. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept although I also dislike this image, Juliancolton's comment is true. abf «Cabale!» 11:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
tagged as a speedy deletion - duplicate of File:France colonial Empire10.png, except that it's not a duplicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) ? (UTC)
- As the author, I don't mind if it is deleted, it is a variant of File:France colonial Empire10.png I originally created at the request of Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, but it's never been used. Kmusser (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong Delete It has never been used because it is a near identical to the file mentioned above which also shares an almost identicval name. Therefore it is considered a duplicate as the only difference is a 10 is missing from this title and 'occupation' shading in China and India are missing. Maps & Lucy (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you insist these are duplicates, whether or not to include the 'spheres of influences' is a fairly significant difference. Kmusser (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is the one that is actually correct. The French Colonial Empire map should only show claims that actually existed as such and not include 'sphere of influence' or whatever that shaded blue stuff is on the other one. Vadac (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- They're both "correct" or at least equally correct. The 'spheres of influences' are areas that the French had been granted various exclusive rights by treaty, not a nebulous whatever. I made both maps so that article editors would have the option of whether or not they wanted to display them, so far they've all opted for the version with them. Kmusser (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: duplicate of File:France colonial Empire10.png (unused).
Copyvio [6] --Pernak1 (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete such malformed are better converted to the {{Copyvio}} template; I will do that now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. by High Contrast. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:Adblock Plus.png
- File:New exception added.jpg
- File:Add filter.jpg
- File:Adblock Plus Preferences.jpg
Delete - Adblock is a free software, but Windows interface is not free. --Josephrobertson21 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The visible Windows interface is too simple to copyrightable. --AVRS (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AVRS, the windows interface is far too simple to be copyrightable (a blue bar and a red X...). Keep them - Hoo man (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
“the windows interface is far too simple to be copyrightable (a blue bar and a red X...” I agree, too.
Anyway, I updated File:Adblock Plus.png, changing the interface to GNU/Linux. Perhaps the other screens I'll update later (because my Adblok+ with Russian, but those screens with English; later I can boot from LiveCD and set the English on it.).
P.S. why the Adblok Plus logo has been deleted? Is it a trademark? I think not. => the logo is free/libre. --エクス４ (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
All kept, but File:Adblock.PNG, since its too complex & also features protected firefox logo. DieBuche (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative of a file that was merely copied off photobucket and was deleted as a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- PD-shape maybe? Looks certainly useful--DieBuche (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure the data is not copyrightable and this is a far sight more well drawn than the original. However I'm required to file the deletion request all the same. -Nard the Bard 03:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, doesn't photobucket requires its users to put all publicly visible content under a more-or-less-PD license? See http://photobucket.com/terms section 6.1. If that's not applicable, I agree with Nard that the data certainly is not protected under any law. If it should be necessary, I could recreate an image from the raw data (if someone gives me more data even up to the current date or for the future). It's a matter of just one hour or so :) --Rubik-wuerfel (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as well, of course. --Rubik-wuerfel (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Rubik; Quote from ToU: "you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels"--DieBuche (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Rubik also... 174.17.248.124 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The image is copied from a copyrighted website, so I doubt the free license Avron (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Image failed review as 'All Rights Reserved.' Since this seems to be the uploader's only image from Panoramio, I submit it was always licensed as ARR. So, WikiCommons cannot legally keep it because it is a copyright violation. Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as likely copyvio from Panoramio, after uploader didn't react to DR and didn't answer direct note on his talkpages --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Amy / Biamyinmd
[edit]These images are not in use in any article space, and are low-quality and redundant. All were at one point available from a flickr account claiming them under a free license, but that account has been removed. Some of these may be suitable to keep; I am not commenting on whether they should be deleted or kept, only relisting the series under its own DR for clarity, so that the three individual DRs below aren't confused with the blanket request. --SJ+ 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Biamyinmd_relaxing.jpg - separate DR
- File:Biamyinmd pregnant and on my knees.jpg - separate DR
- File:Bottomless Amy.jpg - separate DR
- File:Biamyinmd pregnant breasts.jpg
- File:Biamyinmd.jpg
- File:Woman-shower.jpg
- File:Woman-showering.jpg
- Delete These are all pointless images, poor quality, unused and out of scope (no realistic educational use for them). [...] Jehochman (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low quality, unused, redundant. --JN466 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Nudity it's an hot topic, those days, here on Commons. Censorship or not censorship, pornography or not pornography, freedom of expression or prohibition. Anyway, they are really badly shot and low quality. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Nudity is a complication because the person is identifiable and we're not really sure if she's going to want these pictures out there for ever and ever. Even if we were to have a proper model release and documentation of age, I do not see any substantial educational value in these images. Jehochman (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Wknight94 talk 01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all pictures share one common thing: self-portrayal without any reference to one of out articles. Just like "Hey, free webspace and advertising for myself, stupid wikipedia". --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Somebody should close this request. It's redundant to others and confuses me. I guess, I am not the only one. As for File:Biamyinmd pregnant breasts.jpg: I doubt that you ever will find someone who wishes to delete such an important file 78.55.160.216 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep on File:Woman-shower.jpg and File:Woman-showering.jpg as both show a level of artistry (first one could stand to be more tightly cropped). For example, first one could illustrate even a Wikinews article like "Federal government warns about these bad hygiene habits" or something else Yahooey. It veils the nudity, while showing a shower. The second one is artistic and within scope as more in use on something like Wikibooks or a narrow WP article. At the same time, Delete File:Biamyinmd.jpg. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Sure, dude, and for that we could illustrate a wikinews article like "Federal government warns about those ugly bed sheets". --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Except you'll notice news websites, and even .gov websites routinely used "veiled nudity in a shower" images for relevant articles. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 15:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- CommentSome of the pictures could be useful. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete to much self-portrayal, to little educational value. Hardly any interesting positions. no good closeups of interesting body parts. Images are of medium to poor quality. Amada44 (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, no educational or encyclopaedic value. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per com:people. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by consensus. Leaving one with a separate deletion review which has not yet reached clear consensus. That can be decided in the other review. --99of9 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
D' Angelis Family personal pictures
[edit]Personal images. Unuseful, unusable.
- File:Año nuevo 2006 063.jpg
- File:Carlos D`angelis Grose foto1985 (62 años).jpg
- File:Claudia evans.jpg
- File:D'ANGELIS JEFFERIS 2010.jpg
- File:ESTEFANIA FAMULARI D'ANGELIS.jpg
- File:FAMILIA D'ANGELIS.jpg
- File:FOTO DE BERTHA D'ANGELIS NIETA DEL FUNDADOR DEL HOTEL G. D'ANGELIS en madras, y su hija VERONICA EVANS D'ANGELIS BISNIETA DE GIACOMO D'ANGELIS.jpg
- File:Foto de Patricia Elizabeth Evans D'Angelis bisnieta de Giacomo D'Angelis.jpg
- File:INES CATALINA D'ANGELIS CLOSE UP.jpg
- File:Jeff Evans D'Angelis jpeg.jpg
- File:Jeff Evans D'Angelis young.. hotel d'angelis JPG.jpg
- File:Jeff evans 50 años.jpg
- File:Jefferis evans 69 años abril del 2008.JPG
Not PD/Free Screenshots or scanned full prints from not a free site. The text is perhaps in PD but not all the rest.
- File:D'angelis y Coppa 1.jpg
- File:2º parte coppa d'angelis versus GIACOMO D'ANGELIS.jpg
- File:DETALLE DEL CERTIFICADO DE MARIANNA D'ANGELIS.jpg
- File:DETALLE DEL MATRIMONIO DE ALDO PALAZZI CON MARIANNA D'ANGELIS.jpg
Redundant - badly photoshopped or unuseful
- File:, GIACOMO D'ANGELIS BIPLANE, MADRAS 1910 xxx.jpg badly photoshopped from: File:D'Angelis biplane 1910 designed and built, by G. d'Angelis.jpg
- File:Carlos D'Angelis Wilme.jpg Cropped from here: File:Hotel D'Angelis and Son Madras.jpg
- File:HOTEL D'ANGELIS EL FUNDADOR. JPEG.JPG A properly cropped one here: File:GIACOMO D'ANGELIS EN ARGEL.jpg
- File:D'ANGELIS DORSO DE LA FOTO GIACOMO.jpg Modern personal text. No historical value.
Not own work of the uploader. Source unverifiable.
- File:D'ANGELIS SHIELD. JPEG.jpg
- File:When the postman Knocked 2 (continuacion)large.jpg
- File:Ok iglesia de Mariana D'Angelis.JPG
Here the story. Some weeks ago, categorizing, I have stumbled on a large amount of pictures uploaded by the same user, Mr. D' Angelis. Some of them, the historical ones, were pretty valuable. In fact, Giacomo D' Angelis, ancestor of the uploader, had a famous hotel, in the beginning of XX century, in Madras and he was an aviation pioneer (it seems that he made the first official flying attempt in India). There were even some vintage pictures of women that, in my opinion, showed worthy fashion and way of life of the 40's. But then there were all of those. Personal pictures of the uploader, of his family taken in some kind of family happening, apparently, and more pictures taken here and there of, I suppose, even copyrighted material. On the spot I stuck all of them in a new category, Category:D’Angelis Family, in order to evaluate and let evaluate to the community their faith . The german sheriff (this anonymous guy with a german IP that nominates for deletion and disappears) put the category on deletion so the time has come to take a decision. I have categorized according to my view the, for me, valuable and in scope pictures, but really for those I think there isn't any space on Commons. What do you recon?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Giorgiomonteforti, Commons is not a genealogy site. However, perhaps File:FAMILIA D'ANGELIS.jpg could be saved as it shows an example of a tourist/fashion image from the 70s era. It's not very high quality, but I think it's enough to illustrate the topic. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Also the file mentioned by Deadstar, too bad quality, we have better examples and will have better in future. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by User:Londonmarks
[edit]Yet another guy who tries to do some exhibitionism and self-exposure here, mixed with self-promotion. Commons is not in need of this (1) low quality penis-self-pictures, most of the images are of poor quality (2) exhibitionism without educational value, Commons is NOT an amateur porn site to show your willy to the world, see COM:PORN (3) "artistic" interpretions and photo modifications of what he things a dead body may look like, this can be seen as self-created artwork without educational and thus is excluded from Commons COM:PS#Examples. List of files follows. Overweening and excessive self-promotion in en:Nude photography was removed. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:London-2010-03-27 23.jpg
- File:London-2010-03-27 16.jpg
- File:Mark-2010-03-27 11.jpg
- File:London-2010-03-27 9.jpg
- File:London-2010-03-27 7.jpg
- File:London-2010-03-27 5.jpg
- File:Photoshoot april 07 2009 065.jpg
- File:Photoshoot april 07 2009 071.jpg
- File:Photoshoot april 07 2009 007.jpg
- File:Photoshoot april 07 2009 069colormix1.jpg
- File:Body4.jpg
- File:Body3.jpg
- File:Body2.jpg
- File:Body1.jpg
- File:Penis stages.jpg
- File:Male torso front007.jpg
- File:London Marks B&W Nude Self photo.jpg
- File:Nude laying on bridge02.jpg
- File:Nude on the bridge01.jpg
- File:Nude on a fallen tree.jpg
- File:Nude climbing the wall.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's not a matter of censorship, I think. All those pictures have only an exhibitionist purpose. Or, at least, that's what the author communicates to me. And to Martin, I guess. They are not illustrating the human body, or it doesn't seem the main purpose of the author. Then, why Commons? It's good that people are comfortable with their bodies but that's not the way to use them, here, on Commons. Not in this way. If it's a matter of amatorial art, art, according to my views, is something else and, mostly, men body art it's not the same that the women one. But it's just my opinion and I'm open to different point of views, so to change my mind on those pics.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Whilst some of them are quite artistic and I'm generally very acceptable towards nudity on commons, I can hardly think of any educational purpose of these pictures. Didn't check all of them, but as long as they're not in use, they fail COM:SCOPE IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment see User:Londonmarks for an quick overview. --Martin H. (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and comments --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Roughly spoken: commons is not free webspace for such bullshit. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. — Dferg (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted I guess, the request as well as the comments are giving all possible reasons. abf «Cabale!» 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Two of the files shown in this collage are listed as Commons images. In fact they are not, probably because they have been deleted. *The Géode at the Cité des Sciences [7] by Vbritto *Centre Georges-Pompidou [8] by Antonio San Martín Pizarro (Artemor). Since they both show modern sculpture or architecture and there is no FOP in France, they must be replaced in this collage or this collage must be deleted. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, not covered by COM:FOP#United Kingdom. –Tryphon☂ 13:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this purely because of incorrect copyright which I had to apply when uploading? I do not claim copyright to the original memorial, the photo is mine. Reading the derivative works I really do not think this applies, if it were, as the quoted example states, a t-shirt or a piece of art then maybe it would.
What about the other photos of other memorials on the same page?
Do we have to go through this process when adding to the Wikipedia/Commons every time some authoritarian paper shuffler thinks they've cottoned onto something? Gogster (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The thing is, when you take a picture of someone else's work, they have a say in what you can do with the image; so you cannot release it under a free license without the authorization of the author of the work. One exception to this is freedom of panorama, but in the UK it only applies to works of artistic craftsmanship (see COM:FOP#United_Kingdom), and a text isn't part of that category. I'd say in some countries, this would probably not be eligible for copyright (the text is rather short, and not very original) but the UK has a very low threshold when it comes to copyright protection. So let's see what others think. –Tryphon☂ 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just delete the fucking thing. I'd rather not help out than have to explain every photo I take to some bureaucratic tosspot. Gogster (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the most original in this text is not the literary talent that is hardly shown with descriptive short sentences, but the typographical arrangement. I think I read somewhere (for example see this link) that typographical arrangements were copyrighted in the UK, so it should be deleted. Also the author did not bother to sign with his name, which could hint that he doesn't think that anything like personal literary talent is shown here. So very weak delete, but, well, that means delete. You may upload the picture directly on the English language Wikipedia as "fair use", though. Teofilo (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete You know, Gogster, we're all just volunteers trying to help a project which we believe in. We didn't write the copyright laws, and many of us don't like their length and breadth very much, but the law is the law, and calling us names doesn't help anybody. It's well established in the USA that plaques are subject to copyright; since the UK rule on FOP is similar, I strongly suspect that a similar rule applies. There's no question that the text is subject to copyright. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the U.K. for signs. Kameraad Pjotr 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope; useful only for the deleted en:Black Daniel (Band). Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 17:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Per Discussion on QIC Schlurcher (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately no FOP in Italy. --Elekhh 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Comment I do not think this is of relevance to the QI status. If it's illegal, it should be nominated for deletion and its legal status be discussed there. -- H005 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Suitable copyright is a condition for QI. --Elekhh 05:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy --Mbdortmund 14:08, 9 May 2010
- Comment I do not that the exhibition area in Milan Public is. On the other hand I do not know also whether the fair manager has something against the publication of these images. --Böhringer (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Per Discussion on QIC Schlurcher (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately no FOP in Italy. --Elekhh 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Comment I do not think this is of relevance to the QI status. If it's illegal, it should be nominated for deletion and its legal status be discussed there. -- H005 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Suitable copyright is a condition for QI. --Elekhh 05:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy --Mbdortmund 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is there any copyrightable content? -- Smial 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the architecture. --Mbdortmund 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Massimiliano Fuksas. --Elekhh 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do not that the exhibition area in Milan Public is. On the other hand I do not know also whether the fair manager has something against the publication of these images. --Böhringer (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panaroma in Italy. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Published in 1941 in the US, copyright notice visible on the poster. I don't think we should assume it hasn't been renewed. Eusebius (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or move to en wiki (as fair use). Copyright notice readable on the poster. feydey (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We shan't assume then. I've searched the records[9] and neither this poster nor the movie it is based on were renewed. -Nard the Bard 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation Kenmayer (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Copyfraud license it seems, probably {{PD-US-no notice}} (as far as I can see). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that United Artist films from this era are mainly still copyrighted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists#Film_archives I suspect that this poster is a derivative work of a copyrighted film.--Kenmayer (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence for {{PD-US-no notice}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted artwork. fetchcomms☛ 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Work by es:Manuel Espinosa. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. He died 2006. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of photo. --KENPEI (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope -- This is an advertisement for a not-particularly notable art gallery in Poland. Also delete: *File:Małgorzata Gołębiewska.jpg *File:Marcin Gołębiewski.jpg As personal images, out of scope --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One of three things applies:
- this is a work by a notable artist, in which case we need a proper license from that artist and must delete it unless we get that license, or
- it is from a notable artist and qualifies for PD-old, which, while possible, seems unlikely, or
- this is a work from someone else, in which case it belongs on Flickr -- commons is not a repository for personal images.
In any case, this must be deleted unless the license is appropriately modified. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
1944 French (?) postcard : not old enough for PD-EU no author disclosure to apply. --Teofilo (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The source "Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD" is not enough on Commons. The person who has uploaded this photo must tell more about its origin. 80.187.97.231 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Here the masked german sheriff. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete insufficient source information. --High Contrast (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. TOSY Robotics Logo. 百楽兎 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photograph of newspaper from 10 May 1940. This is not PD-Old, and copyright is not owned by uploader, but by newspaper I presume. Includes text and photograph. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded after 70 years, but technically copyright expires on New Year's Eve this year. Is anything copyrightable here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Let's wait until next January, please. Pieter, I don't understand,
- "Is anything copyrightable here?""
As you know, I don't read Dutch, but it looks like the right column might be a government proclamation, therefore PD, and the photo of Wilhelmina might be official, also PD, but the left column and the headline would appear to be in copyright. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- "News of the day" is not copyrightable. These few lines in a large font only report a few events in very factual language, with little room for originality or literary creativity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation: the paper is certainly protected by copyright, PD-status of the photograph or the proclamation has not been proven. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of modern painting. Painter (Cospy Franco) born in 1962. Yet author states "Rafael Franco"? Uploader cannot release this image. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:SNV82073.JPG - Author again states "Rafael Franco", yet uploader is User:MaartenO, which leaves me thinking it's not the same person. The image is also released into the PD by the uploader. Confusion about licensing - perhaps OTRS would sort it out. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion. The photo was uploaded by me but is made by my brother in law Rafael Franco. MaartenO (msg)
Deleted, no permission from the original painter. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an huge map to display another (better) PNG version as thumbnail. --Perhelion (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The following is a transclusion added by User:Perhelion. Much of it is not relevent to this discussion. My relevant comments begin at the Keep below. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This project page was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2010 but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.I have just removed a {{Duplicate}} tag from this image. I don't understand why a PNG image approximately 1/2 the pixel width in each dimension is a duplicate.
- I understand that there should be an SVG for our use on WMF projects. Fine, that's coming. Unless someone wants to take the AutoCAD R14 DWG from me and make an SVG, it requires my setting up Gimp -- which I have intended to do for some time, but which will not happen immediately. This assumes that Gimp can properly handle the splines in the DWG. Making an SVG from one of the bit-map versions is not smart.
- I understand that in general, PNG is a better format for maps, drawings and other images that do not have continuous tones. However, apparently Commons's software cannot correctly thumbnail png images larger than approximately 12 million pixels, hence my upload of a large JPG.
- We need to remember that Commons is a source for images for many others than WMF and that other uses may need higher pixel counts than are in the "duplicate" PNG.
- While this image is 10,000 pixels wide, it is only 3.5MB, so we needn't worry about taking up too much storage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay because:
- 2. thumbnails (source) are not determining for quality (so JPG is sometimes better in extra sharpening) but for small size
- 3. the better image is here linked File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.png under Other version = [10]
- 4. this image is very large and rendering takes too much time and memory (for ever and everywhere and everyone). And this image has much lesser size and better quality.
- references: COM:FT But I think another one (admin) should decide. --Perhelion (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)(en isn't my mother tongue)
- So I've maybe another suggestion, use the (small?) JPEG as thumbnail and the PNG as original. You could also compress "lossless" the original PNG (10000x4516 24bit) 408KB to 282KB (2bit) --Perhelion (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC) If so, then please delete all my image versions on file:Eritrean_Railway_Map_of_March,_1998.png, i've marked it with {{JPEG version of PNG}} --Perhelion (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
1) I have to start by saying that I don't understand the fuss here. Although this file is 50 megapixels, this "huge" and "very large" file is only 3.5 megabytes -- we have millions of files this size and Commons explicit policy is to load the highest resolution available, up to 100 megabytes file size. I have spent more time discussing this one image with User:Perhelion than the total time on all other images I have uploaded, more than 600 in all.
2) As noted above, the only reason for a JPG this size is that Commons software will not thumbnail a PNG of this size. If it were not for that failing, the best file here would be a PNG of this size.
3) The crux of this discussion, however, is User:Perhelion's comment above,
- "this image is very large and rendering takes too much time and memory (for ever and everywhere and everyone). And this image has much lesser size and better quality."
This is a completely Web-centric view. Commons is a repository for images which can be used in many ways, including an old fashioned machine called a printing press. When you go to print, "rendering takes too much time and memory" is completely irrelevant and quality is everything. The comment that the smaller PNG image is "better quality" is simply not correct -- if you examine both closely at a screen size where the type is around 20mm high, you will see that the PNG type is heavily aliased while the JPG type is clean. This will easily be seen by the naked eye on the printed page and printers carry linen testers with them to examine output -- they will choose the higher resolution image every time.
4) Or, from a different point of view, let's look at "(for ever and everywhere and everyone)":
- "for ever" -- My two screens total 4,000 pixels wide. How long will it be before my desktop is more than 5,000 pixels wide -- two years? Five years? Surely not "for ever".
- "everywhere" -- Only if you mean only "everywhere on the Web"
- "everyone" -- Last time I looked, many of us, old fashioned to be sure, still read paper books and magazines.
5) If we delete this image, we are saying to the world, "Commons is a source for Web images, but we don't care about the printed image." That's just wrong. About a third of my images from Commons that have been used by others have gone to print, not the Web. And, in fact, before its upload here, this image has already been used on the Web and in print. I have no doubt that it will be printed again, in travel brochures and trip material, but the source of that will not be Commons if this version is deleted. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Im only for the Commons policy (In your policy its better we upload it as BMP). Again the fact is the JPG is
ever"lossy", the size of JPG version = 3588KB vs PNG = 282KB (full size). So I prefer this {{LargePNGthumb}} and {{LargePNG}} and we will upload a (my) "downscaled" separately . I mean you have a bit personaly against me. You only answer (ok for me excessive) if someone do something your related. --Perhelion (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have anything against you personally -- I try very hard to be careful and impersonal with all users because misunderstandings arise easily on Commons, mostly because we are often are not good at each other's languages. I will admit that I am a little frustrated at all this discussion over a 3500KB image -- we have millions that size -- I just don't understand your reasoning. I also don't much like the inaccurate statements you made that are detailed above, but I think they may have come out of the fact that you think of Commons as a source only for the Web and that you may not fundamentally understand the needs of printers. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Question Do I understand correctly that what you are proposing is a 10,000 bit wide PNG image as the main image and a smaller PNG image as the thumbnail? That would make sense to me, except that it seems a waste of time and space. One of the things I will get around to is learning how to convert a DWG directly into an SVG, which is where we should really end up with this. Until then, the present JPG image is fine. It is available on Commons for use in print the next time someone wants it. Uploading a new 10,000 bit wide PNG won't save any space (Commons keeps all versions of all images), it will just use more. I'm open to other suggestions, but I don't see the need. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yes I understand you now better and I'm sorry for the big discussion. You are rigth (I'm not the experienced one on commons and english). I'll revert my PNG edition and we could take a new much smaller JPG upload as thumbnail version?! So I would revoke my delete request. regards (you could delete my uploads on the PNG?!) Here what I mean to do Commons:Media_for_cleanup#PNG_photos_that_require_a_JPEG_version --Perhelion (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- No need to apologize for your English -- as a practical matter it's probably more understandable than mine, which gets a little too fancy unless I am being careful. I notice that you use Gimp. I have been told that Gimp will do a straight conversion from AutoCAD DWG to SVG. If that's true, I could e-mail you the DWG that this came from and you could convert it to SVG and e-mail it back so I could upload it. THen we can get rid of the JPG and PNG. That would be the best solution if it's technically possible and you are willing. If not, give me a list of what we're going to do. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Support Yes Jim I'm willing to do this 
I think you can email me. --Perhelion (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, not an exact duplicate, no reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
large.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VBRITTO-cite-sciences-geode.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pompidoumetro.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3f/20100511181403!Eritrean_Railway_Map_of_March%2C_1998.png){kind=link}
Wrong license; does not seem free according to http://uncyclopedia.kr/wiki/%ED%8C%8C%EC%9D%BC:Wiki.png. –Tryphon☂ 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} according to this page, or am I missing smt.?--DieBuche (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm just not sure it's equivalent to our {{Copyrighted free use}} template (the automatic translation is quite terrible). There seems to be no mention of commercial usage, and since the whole site is {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}, I suspect free use just means free as in free beer. Maybe someone who speaks Korean could be of assistance? –Tryphon☂ 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, "free" in this case probably is of the like of {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference to Template:superseded? --DieBuche (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure but this template is pretty heavily used. Obsolete in my mind refers to thing like old charts and maps that haven't been updated, whereas superseded means there's a higher quality or technically superior version. -Nard the Bard 01:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to Template:Superseded and have a bot change all uses to Template:Superseded, which is superior in that it has many translations. — Jeff G. ツ 23:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merge with Template:Superseded. That template is better technically, but the difference seems to be that "obsolete" marks a file that should be replaced in most uses with a newer image, but not deleted. Template:Superseded should provide for this use, e.g. with a parameter. Example: The widely used photograph of the Swiss government, File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2010.jpg, was updated today because of a change to the government. The new file is now available at File:Bundesrat der Schweiz November 2010.jpg, and I've tagged the old image with Template:Obsolete because it's obsolete for most uses. Sandstein (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to Template:Superseded, the difference is tiny, corresponding to the Wikpedia KISS principle. --Perhelion (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually one should distinguish templatewise between images that are superseded for technical reasons (tiff/png) and other reasons. The superseded template should only be used for the technical reasons. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Redirected to Template:Superseded per above.
However, the usage as described by Sandstein will be incorrect in both cases, the images show completely different topics and there is no quality decision involved to use the on or the other. If someone uses an image of the old Bundesrat to illustrate the new Bundesrat he will simply do wrong, we cant give him advice in any direction not to include wrong pictures. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Original image was deleted for having no source (File:Occam.jpg). These two are derivatives of that file. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to find source. Wait, please. --エクス４ (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson
[edit]This is a multiple request for the following images:
- File:Reykjavik Haskoli Islands.jpg
- File:Reykjavik National Theatre.jpg
- File:Reykjavik National Library National Theatre.jpg
- File:Reykjavik Landakotskirkja.jpg
- File:Reykjavik Hallgrimskirkja.jpg
- File:Akureyrarkirkja.jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja1 RVG.JPG
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 2 RVG.JPG
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 3 RVG.JPG
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 4 RVG.JPG
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 5 RVG.JPG
- File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg
Nominations added by User:Fingalo August 2010:
- File:2006-05-22-124820 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg
- File:2006-05-22-124914 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg
- File:2006-05-22-124955 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkjaorgel.jpg
All the above images are photographs of buildings designed by the Icelandic architect w:Guðjón Samúelsson who died in 1950. Article 43 of the English translation of the Icelandic legislation[11] states that the copyright is for 70 years following the year of death of the copyright holder.
Please see COM:FOP#Iceland and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson for previous consensus and deletions. --JD554 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have the impression that this FOP is exaggerated at an extent which was not even in mind of the legislative authority. A building like Hallgrimskirkja shows up inevitably on almost every second picture of Reykjavik and I cannot imagine that the purpose of FOP is to delete all these pictures. I suggest to leave the pictures online if the questionable subject is not the main subject of the picture, like in File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg. The same applies e.g. for all pictures of Dubai and consequently every picture showing a building of Dubai should therefore be deleted. I can agree with the FOP if pictures are uploaded with the purpose to show architectonial details, but general views of cities? Definitely not! Beside all that, the legal aspect about the location of the server with the pictures on remains: Is - in the above case - Icelandic law applicable, if the servers are located in any third party country? My request: Apply the FOP, but be reasonable! -- Simisa (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you if the image of the church in File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg was just coincidental. However, it is clearly the biggest building in the centre of the photograph and the description of the image is "Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavik", I wouldn't describe it as a "general view of the city". --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- And what about the other arguments? BTW: The picture can be renamed to something like "Street views of Reykjyvik"... The church is covering approx. 10 % of the whole picture! -- Simisa (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The only other argument I can see is about the location of the servers and would that be applicable to Icelandic law. The answer to that is of course ... yes. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, hope I'm getting this right: "Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland." meaning that image is free for use until 70 years have passed since the architect's death? And if that's right, there's a calculation error: Guðjón Samúelsson died in 1950, so only 60 years have passed since his death, so in the year 2020 these deletions would make sense, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyndeer (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The images would be OK from 1 January 2021, as the 70 years doesn't start until the end of the year the copyright holder died. --JD554 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, hope I'm getting this right: "Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland." meaning that image is free for use until 70 years have passed since the architect's death? And if that's right, there's a calculation error: Guðjón Samúelsson died in 1950, so only 60 years have passed since his death, so in the year 2020 these deletions would make sense, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyndeer (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The [FOP] in Iceland is only applicable if the object in question is the main subject of the picture. Therefore the article is not applicable for File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg! -- Simisa (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it is the main subject of the picture as explained above. We'll let an admin decide. --JD554 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- The [FOP] in Iceland is only applicable if the object in question is the main subject of the picture. Therefore the article is not applicable for File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg! -- Simisa (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all of them. The law is clear. I don't agree with the argument that the de minimis exception applies to File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg -- the church is the only interesting thing in the photo and the only thing described by the uploader. It's the dead center of the image. I don't like it much either, but that's the law. If you don't like it, complain to the Althing, or ask the architect for a license. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The famous article 16 does NOT say that people must NOT take photographs of buildings, on the contrary. It only says that if a photograph is "exploited for marketing purposes, the author (architect) shall be entitled to remuneration"!!! So one should not be more Catholic than the Pope, as it were. As far as I understand art. 16, it is absolutely allowed to publish photographs, but if anyone on our planet starts to make money out of these Wikimedia photographs, then the author and his heirs are entitled to claim their share. Cf.: Article 16: Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting.212.183.103.187 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment User:212.183.103.187 has the facts exactly right, but the wrong conclusion. Commons images must be free for commercial use -- to be "exploited for marketing purposes" without payment to the architect. This is an essential part of Commons -- we are a repository for the world, commercial and non-commercial, not just for our related projects. (As an example, all of my images which have been used outside Commons have been for commercial use.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." So if it needs a licence in order to make commercial use of the image, we can't host it here. --JD554 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Well, the photographs in question (Icelandic architecture) can be used "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose", but if a user makes money by selling the photographs he/she should be aware of the fact that in Iceland the heirs may claim some percentage or royalties. May I ask a stupid question: does Icelandic copyright law apply to states outside Iceland? I asked a tourist guide book publisher if he knows about the art. 16 restrictions and he said he would not care because in Europe, according to European law, it is legal to publish photographs showing Icelandic architecture (unless the Icelandic architecture is considered harmful because of their ugliness). Joking apart: Iceland is part of the European Economic Space area and probably Iceland had to accept European copyright regulations in the last few years. Could this be? Maybe the art. 16 is obsolete and it is not even necessary to declare it null and void officially.Martinp1 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Again, work on Commons must be free for use by anyone, any time, for any purpose, without payment. This must be true under the laws of the United States (where our servers are located) and in the country of origin, in this case, Iceland. As you say, Icelandic law allows the architect (or his or her heirs) to collect royalties for commercial use. That is not consistent with Commons's requirements. Period. End of story.
- As for your guide book publisher, he's wrong. The EU (and all other signers of the Berne Convention) honor the laws of all other signers. The EU law is exactly like the Icelandic law -- that all architecture and sculpture is subject to copyright and may not be photographed for commercial use. The EU allows its members to relax that rule and some countries do so for buildings in their own countries. So, our Icelandic architect could bring an action against your guide book publisher in the EU and would win. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Before deleting the images, please wait a few weeks, I have contacted the Icelandic Education Ministry, which handles the Copyright Law, and asked for advice, maybe the heirs of Gudjon Samúelsson will give their consent. Martinp1 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It IS legal to publish Icelandic architecture photographs in e.g. Germany because in Germany there is freedom of panorama! So, as it seems, a German guide book publisher MAY use photographs of Gudjon Samuelsson buildings without paying any remuneration to hypothetic Icelandic heirs!! This principle is called lex loci protectionis or Schutzlandprinzip, cf. [[12]] and comments on the Hundertwasser case. Thus, as far as I understand, Commons Wikimedia may guarantee the unrestricted usage of Icelandic architecture buildings, even for commercial purposes, for all countries which have freedom of panorama because in these countries (e.g. US, Netherlands and Germany) protection can be claimed only within the national law. Martinp1 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- The only problem with that is that Commons' own rules (not legislation) only allows images that are free to use in the United States and the country of origin (see COM:L). That is not the case here, as the images are not free to use in Iceland. --JD554 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- The law also says that a picture is illegal, if the majority of the picture shows the questionable object. The majority means more than 50 % of the picture area. Full stop! If one of the heirs of Guðjón Samúelsson has a different opinion, it is up to them to claim the deletion of a certain picture. Otherwise e.g. all aerial pictures of Reykjavik have to be deleted, because Hallgrímskirkja can be seen on all of them! Simisa (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- What you're talking about is the de minimis principal. It does not need the copyrighted part of the image to be more than 50% of the total size of the image, just for the copyrighted part to be trivial - which cannot be used to describe any of the images above. --JD554 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- The law also says that a picture is illegal, if the majority of the picture shows the questionable object. The majority means more than 50 % of the picture area. Full stop! If one of the heirs of Guðjón Samúelsson has a different opinion, it is up to them to claim the deletion of a certain picture. Otherwise e.g. all aerial pictures of Reykjavik have to be deleted, because Hallgrímskirkja can be seen on all of them! Simisa (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only problem with that is that Commons' own rules (not legislation) only allows images that are free to use in the United States and the country of origin (see COM:L). That is not the case here, as the images are not free to use in Iceland. --JD554 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all since the law is clear. Sadly. Hekerui (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't agree that the four images added by Fingalo should be deleted under COM:FOP as they are pictures of the inside of the building and they don't show very much of the building at all. I'm not sure COM:FOP even covers the insides? --JD554 (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I start to understand the principle of FOP. For my full understanding I would appreciate, if someone could explain me, why a picture like e.g. File:Reykjavík33.jpg should not be deleted. I guess that the architects of most of the houses on the picture are not known, at least to a wider public. That means that in general it is not given that they died more than 70 years ago. If this is not granted, according to FOP, the result of their work must not be disclosed for free use. Due to the resolution of the picture - you can also pick any other high resolution picture of Icelandic buildings - the architectonial details of each and every building can clearly be seen. It is hence possible, to use only a part of the picture commercially. And this is exactly what FOP wants to avoid. Should therefore not all high resolution pictures of Iceland showing any building be deleted? Of course with the exception of those where a minimum 70 years old written approval of death of the architect is available... Simisa (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The image content matters, not the resolution. "If the work is the main subject of the photo ..." is the point - if you want to show the city and airport and not concentrate on an individual building it's fine, but if you crop out what you want to concentrate on, and that building's architect isn't dead for 70 years, and make it available under a commercial license, then it's problematic. That would be my explanation anyway. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete, sadly, but clearly. Prepare for re-upload on January 1, 2021. --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Undeleted on 1 January 2021. JGHowes talk 03:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. This has been open now for four months. It's time to close it. Although there are some wonderful buildings here, the Icelandic law leaves recent buildings there outside of our scope. Too bad. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Chubetsu Bridge Sculpture2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:親和（旭川市民文化会館前）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:高橋清 (Takahashi Kiyoshi,1925-1996)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
File:石狩の夏.jpg etc.
[edit]
- File:石狩の夏.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:黎明の宙（旭川市ごりょう公園）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation of art. Artist:ja:善本秀作 (Zenmoto Syusaku,1934-)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:CRTinyDuffy
[edit]- File:WPBC.png
- File:Barden Today.jpg
- File:Norden BombSight Barden Precision Bearings.jpg
- File:FAG Aerospace Canada.png
- File:BUK.jpg
- File:Barden Precision Bearings.jpg
- File:Barden US2.png
The images uploaded by User:CRTinyDuffy come from the website of the company Barden bearing probably without authorisation. --Duch.seb (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I suspect that they were used with the company's authorisation. This is more likely to be a COI issue than a simple copyright lack of permission - although some OTRS work may yet be needed. That said, the authorship claim is probably dubious, especially for the bombsight images on account of their age. Those ones may indeed have copyright problems. I'd want to hear more explanation from the uploader before !voting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I am the Director of Business Development at Schaeffler Aerospace. I represent the company and ownership of the photographs. The authorship is not dubious. The use is authorized. CRTinyDuffy (talk)
- Thanks for that - I guessed as much. Are you familiar with the OTRS process? Wikimedia uses this to record claims such as this in a controlled and traceable manner. To keep the paperwork straight at Commons, it's probably going to be necessary for you to go through this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Further to that, it might still be appropriate to remove these images from Commons, in the interests of their rights holder (be that Schaeffler or Barden). Anything uploaded to Commons must be uploaded under a free licence, i.e. free for others to make pretty wide use of in the future, e.g. CC-by-sa. The rights owner of these images, especially for anything "corporate" might prefer to upload them to Wikipedia instead (which permits a rather more restrictive licence). They could still be used to illustrate the Barden article, but they wouldn't need to have their rights released quite so freely.
- That said, can we please have the Norden bombsight images on Commons under a free licence, as they're hard to find and valued images that are useful to a range of articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't as a general rule permit a rather more restrictive license. They do use a few images under fair use, but that's a limited set, and I don't believe any of these would be permitted under Wikipedia's fair use rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia doesn't as a general rule permit a rather more restrictive license."
- Commons uploads must be free for re-use outside Commons (i.e. at least GFDL or CC-by-sa). Wikipedia uploads need not.
- I'm not thinking of "fair use" images (which don't even exist in my jurisdiction) but rather a commercially owned image that is licensed to Wikipedia's use, through OTRS. We discourage these generally, as we encourage the use and further re-use of the content throughout Wikimedia. However it's better to have a restricted image than no image (the excuse behind the US-centric nightmare of "fair use") and we should also recognise that original image owners have their interests in this too. I'm not an absolutist "Free Content or Death" Gnu advocate. We can recognise that a commercial body might wish to license content to Wikipedia, for Wikipedia, but without wishing to go so far as to demand that they go as far as a free license on it. This is a better situation than either them not releasing the content, or Wikipedia grabbing the content under "fair use". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show me an example? I am under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are licensed only to Wikipedia unless they can be used under the fair use guidelines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy, I'm traveling, but will educate myself as I get some free time and attend to the details. I don't think there would be an issue with the Norden Bombsight photographs. CRTinyDuffy (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)