Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alexander_Calder_(1974)_SOS!_Control_IAS_08600068.jpg){kind=link}
_(SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000093).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of a half-dozen actor headshots. Unlikely the uploader holds the rights to the individual headshots pictured. —RP88 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by J Milburn: Copyvio
I disagree with the use of template:PD-textlogo here. The lighting and the shape of the hand are creative enough to pass the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Teofilo (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ad2.png: I disagree with the use of template:PD-textlogo here. The lighting and the shape of the hand are creative enough to pass the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.
A) The EXIF data mentions Getty Images as copyright owner. B) getty images website page mentions a different photographer name (Michael Buckner NOT K. Smith). C) That same getty images website page refers to this picture as a non-free picture. D) I simply can't believe that Getty Images would release any of their pictures as a free picture. E) I will leave a message on the OTRS noticeboard to ask for clarifications. --Teofilo (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- What? Did you bother to read my talk page related to this image? I told Martin he could delete the image while I'm trying to sort it out in OTRS. Killiondude (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. The uploader's talk page is the last page I read when I make a deletion request. Every copyright information is supposed to be mentioned on the File description page, not on anybody's talk page. Teofilo (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- To avoid this (wasting both my time and yours) you might have nominated the picture for deletion yourself. But this is not totally a waste of time. It shows how unsafe our current OTRS system is. Increasing our awareness of the fragility of the OTRS system is not a bad thing. Teofilo (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. reasoning. I agree with Teofilos last point. Also the nomination reason shares my concerns raised on Killiondudes talk, I could have used this regulare and more visible process of deletion request or OTRSN too, so sorry for the double work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Yann (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep As said on image's description Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents; are not subject to copyright. and Typeface as typeface. That's why we have Commons:Image_casebook#Trademarks. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Rather obvious PD-textlogo case. Correctly identified as such. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per PD-textlogo. –Krinkletalk 08:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It can hurt someone's sensitivity (I guess) Dimod61 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia does not censor for Muslim sensitivities. This is not Muslimpedia, where muslims say what can be done and what can not be done.Cmmmm1 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)- This account is a sock of an editor (User:Cmmmm) who has been indefinitely banned from en.Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Greg A L (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: "Hurt someone's sensitivity" isn't a valid reason to exclude material from Commons. The file is worth keeping in its present condition. However, I would strongly encourage the author to establish this illustration's educational significance, protecting it against any future deletion attempts for project scope and the like, by providing some background detail for us in the file description. For example:
- What equipment (e.g. hardware and software) was used to make this drawing?
- Is there a name you'd use to describe this style of drawing? Can you Wikilink to an article or externally link to a resource that tells us how to make high-quality cartoons like this ourselves?
- Can you explain where you found or how you came up with the archetypes that you portray?
- The map seems to match that preceding the w:Fall of Constantinople, and the cross-shaped shield suggests the w:Crusades to me. Can you explain a bit about your intent (was it perhaps to compare some of the veil and minaret laws in the current news to the Crusades ca. 1200-1400 A.D.)? (Alternatively, I suppose this could be viewed as an Aryan figure protecting her living space from sub-human Semitic peoples...)
- This was brought up in Talk:Everybody Draw Muhammad Day. Can you certify that this was in fact submitted to that event? If it has been the subject of any report, award, or third-party commentary, it would be helpful to mention this.
- As I said, the cartoon needs none of these things to be retained. But there is a lot of debate going on now regarding freedom of expression, and explaining things like that can help to strengthen the case in support of it. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:Snowball. The image is 1) not used in any article; 2) it is a user contribution that did not come from a reliable secondary source and has no notability; and 3) because of its POV-pushing nature (depicting Muslims as turban-wearing pigs who are unwelcome in Europe and are being righteously kicked out) it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being (legitimately) used in any article in the future. Note that if the image is not used in an article or in a meaningful way in WP-space, it will eventually be deleted anyway. Greg A L (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am concerned about some points in this logic. Compare, for example, the user-generated artwork at right.
- Such a figure is also a user-generated artwork expressing a user's sentiment. Would you call that POV-pushing? Or is "POV-pushing" limited to viewpoints that offend you?
- Such a figure does not come from a reliable secondary source. But doesn't Commons allow user-generated public domain artwork in many contexts?
- Provided that this cartoon was in fact part of w:Everybody Draw Muhammad Day it belongs in the gallery in that target article (yes, I know that's another debate). We should not imagine that biasing that article, by leaving out really offensive images, is really such a service to Muslims. Instead it could cause people to look at Muslims as "cry-babies" because they protest over a few tame cartoons... because the readers aren't being allowed to see the images that might make the angry response seem more understandable to them. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am concerned about some points in this logic. Compare, for example, the user-generated artwork at right.
- Are you serious? The image of the dove is used all over the place in userspace. Go ahead; click on the image and look at the file usage. Are you suggesting that userspace is the same as articlespace? Or are you thinking that a bunch of wikipedians will soon want to adorn their user pages with a badge such as the one at right? Are you going to be first? User:Cmmmm is banned for life so he won’t be able to serve as the flagship wikipeidan to so-decorate his userpage. Your analogy is absurd. Now…
Note that my invitation to be the first user to create a badge like this is just theoretical; it wouldn’t be permissible. Why? Well, I’ll make the point in a way that you might be able to better relate to: The Persian (think: Iran) version of Wikipedia once had a problem where administrators were running into trouble with users over there adorning their user pages with anti-Isreal comments and images of SCUD missiles being launched. The admins came to ANI here en.Wikipedia (where I saw the thread) to see what to do. The short answer is that user pages are not the property of the user. The cartoon at right belongs on a personal weblog of Cmmmm’s and has zero business being on Commons because it will never find a legitimate use in articlespace.
Oh… P.S. I’m non-religious; I am neither Muslim or Jew. All religion is “pretend”, IMHO. But I also know Wikipedia policy pretty well and use an abundance of WP:COMMONSENSE on this one. Wikipedia is NOT a venue—even on user pages—for people to editorialize and bash other people’s religion. That sort of mentality has lead to far too many holy wars and deaths because, as Mark Twain once wrote:
- Are you serious? The image of the dove is used all over the place in userspace. Go ahead; click on the image and look at the file usage. Are you suggesting that userspace is the same as articlespace? Or are you thinking that a bunch of wikipedians will soon want to adorn their user pages with a badge such as the one at right? Are you going to be first? User:Cmmmm is banned for life so he won’t be able to serve as the flagship wikipeidan to so-decorate his userpage. Your analogy is absurd. Now…
| “ | Man is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion—several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. | ” |
- The community doesn’t need nor want Cmmmm’s religious hatred here, nor your feeble attempts to cite Wikipedia policies in a vain attempt to support his efforts; that much is a lost cause. Greg A L (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clear the air, I've simultaneously argued in favor of retention of an image File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif (which should be a really easy case to win). I would argue in favor of retaining an image blaspheming Christianity, except that most Christian countries, or at least the U.S., have defended this freedom so well that it has become almost too passe for artists to bother with.
- I don't think the dove's use in userspace argues for or against retaining that image, because userspace is just a courtesy. It is not as strong a reason to keep as that an image was submitted to a noteworthy protest, to be precise. I don't want it deleted; I'm just using it to remind people that there is no blanket policy against user generated artwork.
- And for the record, what leads to deaths in holy wars is the domination of religion by ambitious secular authorities (Roman emperors, German princes, Spanish royalty). Allowing freedom of religion, including blasphemy, prevents this and prevents those wars. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence for "own work", which would be needed for work of this technical quality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)- Delete per COM:PRP. The uploader has no other contributions, is apparently (per Greg A L) a sockpuppet, and the cartoon is of high technical quality. - Gump Stump (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, user-made artwork with no potential use. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I am ashamed that nobody has the backbone to defend this image. I thought that Wikipedia was a way to preserve this image against censorship and threats. People are killed because they made pictures of Mohammed Vilks takes fight to Facebook foesCmmmm1 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: either actual work of Cmmmm1, then unnotable and out of scope; or copyvio. Either way, speedy fodder. Rama (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, as indicated by watermarks. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation
Possible copyright violation, as indicated by the watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The same goes for File:Сверху МичГАУ.jpg, where the watermark has been cropped out. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I could have tagged the picture with {{No permission since}}. The "author=" information is wrong (a citizen group and a citizen group member are not the same thing) and the sentence "This photo was taken by a team member of Wikipedia Saves Public Art" is not sufficient. We need evidence (such as an E-mail) that the photographer agrees with the terms of the license. --Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg){kind=link}
Request withdrawn. The project Wikipedia Saves public art has received overwhelming support at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. Teofilo (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg){kind=link}
- Any permission provided by the photographer and by the sculptor? --Eusebius (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and sculpture may be copyrighted as well. --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by User:99of9. Jujutacular T · C 12:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2009 sculpture in the USA. See COM:FOP#United States. --Teofilo (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Request withdrawn. The project Wikipedia Saves public art has received overwhelming support at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. Teofilo (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete this overwhelming support doesn't make the image free. --Eusebius (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by User:99of9. Jujutacular T · C 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alexander_Calder_(1974)_SOS!_Control_IAS_08600068.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Alexander_Calder_(1974)_SOS!_Control_IAS_08600068.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The wording This photo was taken by a member of Wikipedia Saves Public Art for educational purposes sounds like a non-free (possibly "Wikipedia only") restriction, making the file unwelcome on Wikimedia Commons per COM:L. If the photographer agrees to the term of the Creative Commons license without any restriction, we need evidence for this such as an E-mail this photographer should send to the E-mail address mentioned on COM:OTRS. --Teofilo (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. The project Wikipedia Saves public art has received overwhelming support at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art.Teofilo (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Image licensed by Flickr uploader as CC-BY-2.0. Also, sculpture was made in 1974, so it looks like it's okay from an FOP standpoint as well. - Gump Stump (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Flickr uploader does not claim to be the photographer and does not provide evidence that the File is licenced under the mentioned licence (he/she does not provide evidence of licence approval by the photographer). Teofilo (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this will help? - Gump Stump (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Flickr uploader does not claim to be the photographer and does not provide evidence that the File is licenced under the mentioned licence (he/she does not provide evidence of licence approval by the photographer). Teofilo (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that Wikiproject must be discarded. For that purpose I made a request at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. Teofilo (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since this was created in 1974, isn't it still under copyright? COM:FOP#United_States. Jujutacular T · C 16:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Constructed after 1922, the statue is still under copyright. This is a derivative work - copyvio. Jujutacular T · C 02:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by User:99of9. Jujutacular T · C 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
seems impossible to find where it was taken.. Frédéric (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment You might have notified the uploader... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)- Comment Sent e-mail to uploader to try to identify location. Awaiting reply. This, that and the other (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Put my investigator hat on and found this street view. Buildings on the left have been painted but that's the place. Maisonsgoutte. I'll add coordinates and categories. Wknight94 talk 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Impressive sleuthing! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Yes some clues were written on the uploader's wiki fr page fr:Utilisateur:Biehler.JF. Teofilo (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept - problem solved (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized personal logo, out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--E8 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular T · C 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative works. Michael Wiki (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
File:John_Peter_Gabriel_Muhlenberg_by_Caroline_M._Hufford_(1980)_(SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000093).jpg
[edit]_(SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000093).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000093).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This statue, from 1980, is owned by a federal institution, but there's no sign that the author (Caroline M. Hufford) was a federal agent. No FOP for statues in the US. Eusebius (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation of the photograph ("© 2001-2004 Smithsonian Institution All rights reserved" is written at the bottom of the SIRIS catalog page.
- Teofilo (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the black and white photographs (there are dozens, but less than 100) found with a "Wikipedia saves public art" search are copyright violations of the SIRIS catalog. Teofilo (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have listed some here, with a no-FOP rationale. --Eusebius (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
_SOS!_Control_IAS_77006494.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Map on an information panel in France. See COM:FOP#France and the map paragraph at COM:CB --Teofilo (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A copyrighted screenshot from movie by Akira Kurosawa ,acorrding to {{PD-Japan-film}} still under copyright matanya • talk 10:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yes since Akira Kurosawa died in 1998 it is not yet 38 years since he died. --MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is a probable copyright infringement. Evedences: 1) the summary of the uploader "FOTO:RUF". 2) The setting of the briquettes, stacked as in a catalogue, not like a normal user would arrange them. 3) Strong photoshopping artefacts, making it probable that a background proving that the picture is copyrighted was removed. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Uploader seems to concede that the photo is from the company. Jujutacular T · C 16:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
commercial logo - no evidence that it's been released in PD; no OTRS on 'permission..." claim Skier Dude (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
nonfree image, good faith improvement of an existing image, however, a better rendition already exists at en:File:Muslim Scout Association of Lebanon.png --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
the description on the left , not make in 1920s 221.127.127.155 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
nonfree image, a better rendition already exists at en:File:Muslim Scout Association of Lebanon.png --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
sourced to [1] with Author=Michael Liew - no proof this was ever released under CC Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Needs OTRS permission. I listed DR and notified uploader. Wknight94 talk 12:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploader is unlikely to be the author. I looks more like a screenshot of a (potentially non-free) video. We can't keep images where the copyright holder in unknown. Damiens.rf 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality, which assembly, which experts? --El-Bardo (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Sourced to http://khobregan.ir so OTRS permission necessary (unless there is a notice of free use is in another language there). I listed this and notified the uploader (here, not at en.wp). Wknight94 talk 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I am not the author of this image. I just transfered it from en:wp to commons, because it was labled as PD. But that was more than two years ago. Today I probably wouldnt do it again =) Btw, the Assembly of Experts is an important institution in the politics of Iran. --Ervaude (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- No one is arguing about their importance - just the usefulness and copyright status of this particular image. Wknight94 talk 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think author has rights to uploading this file Xjr (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No source. I listed this and notified the uploader. Wknight94 talk 12:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
personalised unused and uncategorized toolbar button Santosga (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It's rather hard to be sure that MediaWiki edit toolbar buttons like this one are really unused, since their primary use — embedding via personal user scripts — does not show up in the file usage lists. While I couldn't find any uses with a quick Google search, I'd be disinclined to delete such files without a good reason. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Might be in use (undetected - CSS embedding does that, for example). --Guandalug (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
personalised unused and uncategorized toolbar button Santosga (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It's rather hard to be sure that MediaWiki edit toolbar buttons like this one are really unused, since their primary use — embedding via personal user scripts — does not show up in the file usage lists. While I couldn't find any uses with a quick Google search, I'd be disinclined to delete such files without a good reason. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Ilmari Karonen. You don't know if it's really unused (CSS embedding doesn't really show up on the usage list, for example). --Guandalug (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Taken in Berlin by Red Army. Not PD in Germany or Russia. Kragenfaultier (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Taken in Berlin by Red Army. Not PD in Germany or Russia. Kragenfaultier (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ivan Kaveleridze, the director of the movie died 1978 ([2]) Not PD in the Ukraine. Kragenfaultier (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a famous photo of the Avro Arrow being rolled out in 1957. Not the uploader's work. Gump Stump (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, advertising Santosga (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This file has already been listed once, and it was kept. See discussion here. Has anything changed since then? - Gump Stump (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep misunderstanding, advertisement can be removed Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. When we can start speedy deleting things like this? Wknight94 talk 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted @wikiknight: whenever you want ;) abf «Cabale!» 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Certainly a non-free promotional image. Triwbe (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United States for statues, no evidence that this statue is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We've had this argument before: see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NycCentralParkalicesculpture.jpg and Category:Alice in Wonderland (Central Park). The statue is public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could I see said argument/evidence it is public domain? And could the file page please be updated so that someone else doesn't nominate it? J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's no copyright note, there's no renewal, all mentioned in the last DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I apologise, I didn't actually see you'd linked to a previous one. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- After looking at that deletion discussion and the applicable laws, I'm not convinced it is a published work, meaning that rule would not apply. Take a look at this page- just because it is on display in a public place, does not mean that it is published under US law. As such, the work would enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#United_States says "Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published,[10]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#United_States says "Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published,[10]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- After looking at that deletion discussion and the applicable laws, I'm not convinced it is a published work, meaning that rule would not apply. Take a look at this page- just because it is on display in a public place, does not mean that it is published under US law. As such, the work would enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I apologise, I didn't actually see you'd linked to a previous one. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's no copyright note, there's no renewal, all mentioned in the last DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could I see said argument/evidence it is public domain? And could the file page please be updated so that someone else doesn't nominate it? J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I originally added the image, and am keen to have it included in the cultural section of the Amanita Muscaria page on English Wikipedia (some discussion ongoing around references due to lack of direct botanical likeness). There are already numerous images of the same sculpture (see initial categories), so I do think that - all things considered - this deletion request is somewhat spurious... Pratyeka (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
unused wikipedian personal logo Santosga (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Arche de la Défense and other images of isolated monuments used in this collage are in breach of the no Freedom of Panorama in France. Rosss (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment As noted on the talk page, there is also a problem with the license for the image of the Sacre Coeur. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - strong doubts that these are all selftaken images - looks like a scan of a postcard. Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment this looks to be a collage of our own images, e.g. File:Panorama Paris December 2007-2.jpg and File:Église de la Madeleine.jpg. If someone can confirm this, we need to find the rest of these images. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless source and license issues can be cleared up. I listed this DR. Wknight94 talk 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
strange unused story about "scandinavian mountain demons" (or something similar) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
strange unused text with story - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
strange unused text - out of scope - part three (see DR above) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - researcher in mexico (?) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange image - out of scope, nearly a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Photographic work unlikely to be ineligible for copyright. Source website contains copyright notice. Arsonal (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Photographic work unlikely to be ineligible for copyright. Source website contains copyright notice. Arsonal (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Photographic work unlikely to be ineligible for copyright. Source website contains copyright notice. Arsonal (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Photographic work unlikely to be ineligible for copyright. Source website contains copyright notice. Arsonal (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
strange drawing with text - out of scope (like the whole category), unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Date is unclear Lysippos (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Author unknown. File in the article today changed. Delete the file please. Thank you. --Lysippos (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- KeepWhy delete it? Would you reupload it? It's an important document of an important building with a given date, so I don't see any reason to delete this. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Post cards from User:Lysippos the author of this image is unknown (Lysippos can´t be the author because you don´t gain any copyright through a simple scan). So we don´t know anything about the copyright status. Chaddy (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Date is 1923; change the license to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
per Pieter Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
self nomination of low-res version. has been identified. Zunaid (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete see File:Acraea.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted and redirected. Pruneautalk 12:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
self nomination of low-res version. has been identified. Zunaid (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete this Oxythyrea from the science-questions page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 99of9 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Belgium does not have the Freedom of Panorama, so this image may have to be moved to the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and move to En. The building's design does not appear to be utilitarian to me. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep industrial building without anything special. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am doubtful that the uploader owns the permission to this poster and all the images in it... so I think it is a copyright violation. Killiondude (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I listed this DR. Wknight94 talk 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader's initials match with the name on the poster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- There was also an upload File:CUADRO DE NUBES-PERÚ.JPG, where (according to google's cache) uploader gave Jorge Román Torero Cobeña as the author. I am convinced that uploader made the poster. As to the images in it, I would assume good faith. A person interested in clouds is likely to have made his own collection of local cloud photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
File:1947_rok,_trwa_akcja_Wisła._Żołnierze_wiozą_pojmanych_w_obławie_partyzantów_ukraińskiej_UPA._Wyborcza.30.01.2007.jpg
[edit]
Photograph taken in 1947. Presumably copyrighted, I think copyright in Poland and Ukraine lasts for 70 years after the creator's death. Prezbo (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not a valid license --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Poland}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- That was my first thought too but unfortunately it does not meet requirements of PD-Polish, since there is no proof that the image was published prior to 1996. --Jarekt (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The raster indicates that there was a publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- That was my first thought too but unfortunately it does not meet requirements of PD-Polish, since there is no proof that the image was published prior to 1996. --Jarekt (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication. Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Not published by author. Wrong license. Ronn (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Breaches usefulness criteria and was used by Zzzzz to vandalise the Arsenal F.C. wikipedia page on 18 May 2006 Shakehandsman (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Used for vandalism on another project more than three years prior, by an account that is not blocked ---- sorry but that's a bizarre reason for deletion. As for COM:SCOPE, it seems fine to me. I listed this DR. Wknight94 talk 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for 2D works in the UK, passes threshold of copyright. -Nard the Bard 23:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
self nomination of low-res version. has been identified. Zunaid (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In use on several pages, good to keep around; see File:Carpenter bee in flight.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
self nomination of low-res version. has been identified. Zunaid (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In use on several pages, good to keep around; see File:Carpenter bee in flight.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Highly doubtful this is own work. A few related uploads by same user have been deleted as blatant copyvios. EXIF of the only other image left does not match. Wknight94 talk 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Highly doubtful this is own work. A few related uploads by same user have been deleted as blatant copyvios. EXIF of the only other image left does not match. Wknight94 talk 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a replica of Picasso's Guernica, which is under copyright. Not a free image. Powers (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Permitted and free under Freedom_of_panorama#Spain--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that only apply if this was the original Guernica on display? A photograph of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Powers (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you are correct i thought it was the original.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect this is OK. I strongly doubt that a replica that has now been on a wall in a public place in Gernika for decades was done without sorting out rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- But it's an appeal to have the painting displayed in Gernika; it seems unlikely that the rightsholders would agree to support such an appeal that they don't intend to cooperate with. =) Powers (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The rightsholders are probably the Picasso heirs. I don't know if they have an opinion on the location of the painting, especially if they had it in 1997. The painting spent decades abroad and Picasso's will was to have it at Prado. en:Guernica (painting) does not mention the heirs in the discussions about the definitive placement. So the heirs could be very well have authorized the tiles, especially if they were not told about the slogan. --Error (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it's possible, but we don't have evidence either way. Powers (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rightsholders are probably the Picasso heirs. I don't know if they have an opinion on the location of the painting, especially if they had it in 1997. The painting spent decades abroad and Picasso's will was to have it at Prado. en:Guernica (painting) does not mention the heirs in the discussions about the definitive placement. So the heirs could be very well have authorized the tiles, especially if they were not told about the slogan. --Error (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- But it's an appeal to have the painting displayed in Gernika; it seems unlikely that the rightsholders would agree to support such an appeal that they don't intend to cooperate with. =) Powers (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Gerinika-Lumo City Council web site has a brief blurb about this ceramic mural. It says: "This mural was commissioned by the City Hall of Gernika from the firms Cerámicas Queralt in Berga, Barcelona, Barcelona and Gernika being twin cities. It is a reproduction in the tradicional style, faithfully representing the composition that pablo Picasso created...". So this ceramic mural is definitely intended to be a derivative work of Picasso's Guernica (not that was in much doubt), but if it is a copyright violation due to lack of license, it is a pretty high profile one given that this is not the work of an anonymous artist making a social statement, but instead a work officially commissioned by Gernika's city government. —RP88 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect this is OK. I strongly doubt that a replica that has now been on a wall in a public place in Gernika for decades was done without sorting out rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you are correct i thought it was the original.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that only apply if this was the original Guernica on display? A photograph of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Powers (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per RP88. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- RP88 didn't say anything about keeping. Powers (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also think it's under freedom of panorama. --Error (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not at issue here. The problem is not that the photo is derivative of the displayed mural; it's that the mural is derivative of Guernica. And Guernica is not on public outdoor display and is thus not subject to Freedom of Panorama exceptions. Powers (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept per RP88: This is not a graffiti or private mural but a replica commissioned by the city of Guernica in 1997. I think that it is safe to assume here that this replica is no copyright violation, i.e. this was done with authorization by the heirs of Pablo Picasso. Given this, {{FoP-Spain}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the reason given for keeping this by the closing administrator was flawed. We cannot simply assume that the city had permission to violate copyright, nor that that permission extends to us, without some sort of evidence of that. Its mere existence is not evidence of permission. Powers (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We don't have a reason to belive otherwise, either. We can proove that we took the image under FOP, so if anybody complains about this usage, he has to complain about the mural and it's not us to be blamed for that.
- However, creating a mural from a painting could be considered a non-comercial use only (since nobody pays for seeing it), such that this basically circumvents the law in any case. To be considered in general: If I owned a painting of picasso (not the copyrights, the real painting), I could simply place it outside my house at the wall, take a picture and declare it FOP. I don't think there's an article that prevents this "abuse". --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Spanish FoP requires permanence. So your hypothetical painting should be on the wall always. Then it would be under FOP. For example, there are Dalí and Miró works on the streets of Madrid. They are (happily) under FoP. --Error (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I refer to this discussion. Powers failed to substantiate where we should have significant doubts per COM:PRP in this case. Do you know of any case where a Spanish city council commissioned a copyright violation? And, if this would be the case, why didn't the copyright holders object? This replica was erected in 1997. They would have had plenty of time by now. In addition, I want to point out that the permission given to the city does not need to extend directly to us. This is covered by {{FoP-Spain}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's out there for Spanish FOP, and I think we've got to presume legally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I think it's a little abusive to reopen a DR you started a month later when you got no support on the first DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't. I disagreed with the closure, asked AFBorchert to reverse. COM:DR#Appeal clearly says "If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)." I asked on Commons talk:Deletion requests for alternatives but received no reply, so I went ahead and followed the instructions. Powers (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- But more to the point -- how can we presume legality here? I honestly don't understand why, on a project that normally takes copyright so seriously, we're aiding and abetting what looks to be a clear copyright violation of one of the most important artworks of the 20th century. Powers (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's basically simple: Because we don't need to assume that the mural was errected illegally. AGF is also valid for people or rights outside wikipedia. Unless something is obviously and visibly illegal, nobody has to assume bad faith on others rights. Or do you generally assume that any new car you buy at your local dealer is stolen? No, you assume everything is in order with it unless you have evidence for the contrary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that the people who erected this copy were acting in good faith. But that doesn't mean they actually were in the clear in a strict copyright sense. It just doesn't seem at all likely to me that the copyright owners of the original painting would agree to such a public display in a country with freedom of panorama like Spain; if they're going to do that, why not just donate the original to the public domain and be done with it? I worry that this image is being used to circumvent the copyright on the original painting. Doesn't the precautionary principle suggest that we should err on the side of caution here? Powers (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We aren't using to circumvent the copyright on the original painting; en.WP displays the original painting, and everywhere we're using this picture, which is hardly a good copy of the original, we could legally display the original under fair use. (That's not an argument about fair use, but anything we're circumventing is our own rules, not copyright.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that the people who erected this copy were acting in good faith. But that doesn't mean they actually were in the clear in a strict copyright sense. It just doesn't seem at all likely to me that the copyright owners of the original painting would agree to such a public display in a country with freedom of panorama like Spain; if they're going to do that, why not just donate the original to the public domain and be done with it? I worry that this image is being used to circumvent the copyright on the original painting. Doesn't the precautionary principle suggest that we should err on the side of caution here? Powers (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We're not aiding and abetting anything. This is apparently entirely legal under Spanish copyright law, if the template is correct: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." It says nothing about legal works. Furthermore, Commons always takes reasonable presumptions about taking people's word that it's their picture unless there's evidence otherwise. I think assuming a city would not build a permanent mural without the right to display such falls under such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's basically simple: Because we don't need to assume that the mural was errected illegally. AGF is also valid for people or rights outside wikipedia. Unless something is obviously and visibly illegal, nobody has to assume bad faith on others rights. Or do you generally assume that any new car you buy at your local dealer is stolen? No, you assume everything is in order with it unless you have evidence for the contrary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I think it's a little abusive to reopen a DR you started a month later when you got no support on the first DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan and copyvio as literary work. --Vantey (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- --Vantey (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Comment 著作権の切れていない自然文が判読可能であり、言語の著作物としての著作権侵害となります。この種の被写体は屋外でも屋内でも、コモンズでもjaでも受け入れられません。
- --Tak1701d (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Comment 教えていただきありがとうございました。今後アップロードする時は注意します。
- DeleteNo Freedom of panorama.--KENPEI (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted FOP only for buildings in Japan. --Alpertron (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for deleting this file. --Tak1701d (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
incorrect license, would be fair use on en wiki ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This may be public domain, in which case fine (and say so) but claim of own work on and old, undated halftoned image is certainly unlikely. Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The author is someone called Antoine Chezaroni アントワヌ チェザロニ. This does not match the uploader's user name on Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"own work" very unlikely, looks old and scanned. Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"own work" very unlikely, looks old and scanned. Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Might be old enough to be public domain, though. See zh:高雄警察署. I can't read Chinese, but the image could be 90 years old, and might be OK. It would be good if someone who could read Chinese would take a look. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa, no Freedom of Panorama in UAE. --ZooFari 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete if it is possible, move to Wikipedia, per nominator. Tbhotch (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- and all the ble links of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa Tbhotch (talk)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
derivative work (?) abf «Cabale!» 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- is under examination; maybe Logo of Reichsverband deutscher Guts- und Forstbeamten ; then in my opinion no Threshold of originality and no derivative work . kind regards Gertha (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Gertha no derivative work, should stay -- Neozoon (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anfrage zu diesem Thema auf der deutschen Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2010/06#Foto auf Commons Gertha (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Gertha no derivative work, should stay -- Neozoon (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- is under examination; maybe Logo of Reichsverband deutscher Guts- und Forstbeamten ; then in my opinion no Threshold of originality and no derivative work . kind regards Gertha (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Changed "no permission" to ordenary DR. File is uploaded by an enwiki user that claims to be photographer. I find that likely because of the note on the image on "low resolution". Also see [3] notice on enwiki where uploader identify himself (this image File:Doris Eaton Travis color.jpg). MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Doris_Eaton_Travis_color.jpg&oldid=359286364){kind=link}
- Keep Didn't see he identified himself. --Eusebius (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Just to make it clear. By identify i mean that uploader has written "I (Don Spiro) created this work entirely by myself." and therefore telling that he is Don Spiro. Now we have to decide if we trust that uploader is Don Spiro. --MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would AGF by default, unless we have reason to doubt. --Eusebius (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I found no evidence in support of the {{CC-BY-3.0}} tag. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 17:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
German book cover art. The book was first published in 1928. We don't know if the cover art is signed or not. We don't know if this is the first edition or not. --Teofilo (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The book author died 1957. Even if she was not the painter of that image on the cover, the we can assume it is still copyrighted. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Es handelt sich um die Ausgabe von 1928 mit einem illustrierten Buchtitel. Für die - unselbständige - Illustration wurde keine Person als Urheber angegeben.Scheurebe2000 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Hong Kong does not apply to bidimensional works. --Teofilo (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Teo, is that the same case?--Bomsailame (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I think File:Access Shaft at Hill Road, West Island Line 1.jpg has to be deleted too for the same reason. Teofilo (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Teofilo, up to you. well, when? action? Lawcatuong (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Hong Kong for 2D works. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Design on a bus. COM:FOP#Hong Kong does not apply to bidimensional works. The "permanently located" condition is also a bit problematic. --Teofilo (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Its a tramway (streetcar) in Hong Kong and all of them are carrying such advertising liveries. This is a picture of a vehicle and we keep such images as long as it is the whole vehicle and not just a detail of the advertising. Would be difficult to photograph the car without certain design features. -- 91.115.177.52 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- In France there is no Freedom of Panorama at all and it not only difficult but impossible to photography such things as modern architecture or statues (or even the Eiffel Tower by night). In Hong Kong you can't photography buses with creative paintings painted on them. Teofilo (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Hong Kong for 2D works. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is copyrighted. The copyright is owned by Lucas films and Commons cannot host it under any circumstance. It is a fair use image which is not allowed on wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- NOTE: This entire category of Star Wars vehicles are also copyright violations and must be deleted as Admin Lupo notes in this message. Lucas Films own the rights to them all. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm of the opinion that the "vehicle images" from this category and its subcategories are copyvios. Probably OK are IMO File:Guarding the X-wing 2.jpg, File:Guarding the X-wing.jpg, File:Mandos del Ala-X.jpg, File:People in ExCel.jpg, and File:Droid's alfabet.png. Unsure about File:X Marks the Spot 2.jpg, but probably tolerable. The rest are IMO copyvios: derivative works or copies of works copyrighted by the film makers. Lupo 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ==> WTF? It's only a photo of a scale model, it's not a screenshot, or somthing like. Those Lego bricks need also to be deleted due of Lego's copyright? It sucks.--HAF 932 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no copyright in a product that is simply utilitarian unless there are eligible components that can be easily distinguished from it. Or in layman's terms; individual bricks are just utilitarian objects. Now, if they were assembled into something, that's a different story. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's a derivative work of a copyrighted design, and doesn't fall under de minimis. fetchcomms☛ 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Lupo's assessment and Fetchcomms' explanation. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is free, there isn't any copyright. In the french wikipedia, we can't use the original picture (the Star Wars's picture) Cody escadron delta 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I took this picture at MegaCon 2010 in Orlando, Florida. It is of a scale model built by a fan. If it was built by a fan and not Lucasfilm, then the specs would be fan created. The fan may have been inspired but it was his own creation (I see it like art as it was quite a beautiful sight to see in person). I gave the photo a Creative Commons attribution. See the original here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aloha75/4571584198/ Sam Howzit 7:43, 31 July 2010 (EST)
- Keep It is totally a fan made model, not a screenshot of copyrighted material.--RussianTrooper (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
All deleted as derivative works of copyrighted designs. Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Pretty clearly a derivative work. I see no reason to assume that the original is public domain, unless this depends upon some law with which I am not familiar. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it is really her passport, then the picture has been published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice, which should make it PD ({{PD-US-no notice}}). --Eusebius (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to our definition of published- this Commons policy page links to the EnWP page on PD; this page quotes a US law on the subject saying- "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Under these definitions, a passport photo certainly cannot be considered "published". J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This image is derived from File:Janis_Joplin_Passport.jpg, so if the license on that image is correct and validly applied, then this image, File:Janisjoplin.png, is OK. However, while the original source Sérgio Savaman Savarese / savaman at Flickr has apparently licensed a photo of the passport as CC-by-2.0, that photo is clearly a derivative work of the passport itself and the photographer who took the original passport photo. While the passport to which the photo has been attached is a work of the US government and as such clearly PD, as Milburn mentions, I don't think we can use the presence of a photo in the passport as an instance of the photo itself being published. I think we need to consider deleting both. —RP88 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete it and use this one [4] as 'fair-use', a lot better. See the copyright terms [5]. There's a Green's work in the article "Jefferson Airplane" too. 201.17.85.216 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright terms say the Greene image cannot be used by even non-profit organizations. Whatever we do, we need to insert a better picture than that semi-abstract, high-contrast image that's there now. That's decorative, and does not give you a true, encyclopedic picture of the appearance of this article's subject. --207.237.230.157 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as the passport is {{PD-US-no notice}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
this probably could be speedied - it's a crop of a deleted image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janis Joplin Passport.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete According to present US law at least, passports are not "public records" (source). And presumably hotel clerks etc are under "explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents". So a passport photo would not be regarded as published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Image is misleading. It shows Japan, the Philippines, and Korea in region A, but the description page adds a note that they're in region B. Based on the uploader's other images, I have my doubts about the correctness of the rest of the map. Carnildo (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Also, the division line in the Pacific is completely unclear -- it is not actually a North-South line, but has several jogs, see this reference. It includes part of Ellesmere Island in region A; all of Canada is actually in Region B. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep All issues adressed (new version uploaded), remove the file deletion request.
KVDP (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment That's close -- I'm delighted to see that you will actually address problems. Do the final cleanup and I think we're done -- Region B does not touch the shore in Russia -- the marked area should begin at the Korean border, not north of Vladivostok, again refer to this reference. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK this too is now adressed KVDP (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment OK, now it's a keeper, but a request -- I'm sorry I didn't ask for this before -- could we have something other than Cyan? Pale blue or pale green? Primary colors (RGB and CMY) are usually not good for illustration. Again, my apology for not asking earlier. Thanks, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, problems have been corrected. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Santiago Rodríguez Bonome
[edit]- File:Bonome-autoportrait.jpg:
- File:Bonome-chien.jpg:
- File:Bonome-danseuse.jpg:
- File:Bonome04.jpg:
- File:Bonome05.jpg:
- File:Bonomeambassadeur.jpg:
- File:Bonomebiche.jpg:
- File:Bonomecarole.jpg:
- File:Bonomedouleur.jpg:
- File:Bonomeours.jpg:
- File:Bonomeperezlugin.jpg:
- File:Bonomesantiagorodriguez01.jpg:
- File:Bonomesantiagorodriguez03.jpg:
- File:Bonomesimone.jpg:
- File:Bonomevalladares.jpg:
- Santiago_Rodríguez_Bonome:
Artist died in 1995.
- Some pictures are photographs showing the artist. There is no information about the photographer or copyright ownership of the photographs.
- Some pictures are photographs of works (sculptures, paintings) created by the artist. There is no information about the location, so that we are unable to say if COM:FOP might apply.
- Santiago_Rodríguez_Bonome must be deleted as an empty gallery (after all files are deleted)
Teofilo (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Jujutacular T · C 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
El Lissitzky
[edit]- File:El Lissitzky 002.jpg
- File:Vkhutemas.jpg
- File:The Constructor self portrait by El Lissitzky 1925.jpg
- File:Photomontage of the Wolkenbugel by El Lissitzky 1925.jpg
- File:Lithograph by El Lissitzky 1919.jpg
- File:PKsymbol.svg
- File:Illustration by El Lissitzky from Jewish book 1919 2.png
- File:ElLissitsky-Suprem-13.jpg
- File:ElLissitsky-Suprem-11.jpg
- File:ElLissitsky-Suprem-09.jpg
- File:El Lissitzky self portrait 1914.jpg
- File:El lissitzky lenin tribune.jpg
- File:ElLissitsky-Suprem-01.jpg
- File:ElLissitsky-Suprem-07.jpg
- File:El Lissitzky Self-portrait.jpg
- File:El Lissitzky 004.jpg
- File:El Lissitzky 003.jpg
- File:El Lissitzky 001.jpg
- File:El Lissitsky 1928 foldout.jpg
- File:Book cover by El Lissitzky c1918.jpg
- File:Artwork by El Lissitzky c1930.jpg
Lissitzky died after June 22, 1941 and did work work during the Great Patriotic War. This image is protected by Russian copyright law and he was an Russian. (See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artwork by El Lissitzky 1919.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Time Traveler lisitsky.jpg.
--Kragenfaultier (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:PKsymbol.svg is somewhat different from the other images, and is arguably PD-Shape... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Question Was the author subject to repression? If not, copyright for these works expires January 1, 2012. Otherwise, we need to know the date of rehabilitation. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what exact definition of "repression" is relevant. His preferred artistic style was increasingly disfavored under Stalin's anti-"formalist" policies, but he died too soon to be caught up in the anti-Jewish-culture purges of the 1940s... AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:El Lissitzky self portrait 1914.jpg - created in 1914 → {{PD-RusEmpire}} --Butko (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- See also ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское право#Эль Лисицкий (in Russian) --Butko (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete most, but Keep also File:PKsymbol.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Everything was deleted except File:PKsymbol.svg. File:El Lissitzky self portrait 1914.jpg was created not in 1914, but in 1924, it's a clear mistake in the source -- see, for example, [6] (quite reliable book): "From the separate photographs of his face and his hand that he took in 1924 Lissitzky produced the celebrated portrait of himself." And he is simply not young enough on the photo to make it in 1914. Trycatch (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)