Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No permission, clearly an album cover. Enwiki duplicate is tagged non-fee. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- For ref - Enwiki Duplicate here: w:File:Ulver shadowsofthesun cover large.jpg - gives [1] as source
![[1]](http://www.theendrecords.com/label/images/stories/covers/ulver_shadowsofthesun_cover_large.jpg){kind=link}
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Music album cover. Permission missing. High Contrast (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-trival logo, it is tagged as non-free on enwiki w:File:Fuji xerox logo.png. Source given [2] claims it's copyright/trademark [3]. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 10 June 2010; no license
Currently has no license tag, This is a non-trival logo, it is tagged as non-free on enwiki w:File:Singhbadcollegeofengineeringlogo.jpg. Source given is: http://sinhgad.edu/newinst/engineering/home/home.asp but this seemed to be a dead link, so was unable to confirm if this logo was released under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 11 June 2010; no license
bad, unused, small and blurred image without source - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (nice women, but useless) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused very low quality image of no use Amada44 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Maybe pd-old but now this is Copyfraud, also no real source given Avron (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep on two grounds:
- The New York Arsenal closed in 1920, although the building remains. Therefore the caption on this postcard would have been obsolete after 1920, so it was almost certainly published before that, and therefore is PD in the USA.
- Even if, for some strange reason, it was first published in 1923 or later, it is highly unlikely that its copyright would have been renewed -- there would be no reason in the 1950s for a postcard publisher to have renewed the copyright on a long-obsolete postcard. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The seal is old, but the photograph is quite recent, and it is not a simple 2 D reproduction. I'm afraid we cannot keep this image. Rosenzweig δ 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Non trival logo - enwiki duplicate w:File:University Centre in Svalbard logo.png is tagged as non-free. Source listed - [4] gives no explict relase of this logo under a free license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
trademark rights 89.54.155.174 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a non-trival logo, Enwiki duplicate is tagged as non-free w:File:Real_Tamale_United.jpg, Source listed - 'http://www.topgol.com.br' is in Portugese which I can't read, I'm assuming 'Todos os direitos reservados 2002' may be some kind of copyright note. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is tagged as Non-free on Enwiki w:File:Struma1.gif Source site [5] claims: "© Copyright 2000 Nesia Limited - all rights reserved. Reproduction of this Web site, in whole or in part, in any form or medium without express written permission from Nesia Limited is prohibited. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the terms of use" but the enwiki article notes this may be an historic newspaper image from around 1940. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-trival logo, it is tagged as non-free on enwiki w:File:Universidad de chile football.png, Source given is:http://www.hqfl.dk/ but this seemed to be a dead link, so was unable to confirm if this logo was released under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-trival logo, it is tagged as non-free on enwiki w:File:RidleyVarsityIndian.jpg. Source is not given , but in linked article http://www.ridleyicehockey.com/ was mentioned ,I've not been able to confirm this logo was relased under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
advertisement catalog, no related article exists in any wiki project, no foreseeable usage - out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-trival logo, it is tagged as non-free on enwiki w:File:Fuji xerox logo.png. Source given [6] claims it's copyright/trademark [7]. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- agree. Crop off the globe & we're all good--DieBuche (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of a defunct chilean music magazine [8], no related article exists in es or other wiki project Santosga (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work High Contrast (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate a bit on why you consider this photo to be a "derivative work"? As the creator, I can testify to the circumstances I shot the photo which I summarized in the description: Official advertisement poster of the Jordan Tourism Board calling to cast a vote for Petra in the elections for the so-called "New 7 Wonders of the World", organized by the "New7Wonders Foundation". The poster hung in an internet café in Petra during the time of the poll (July 2007) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
All relevant information can be found here. This poster copyrighted. You just photographed it in a quite high resolution and you have released it under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licence. Because you are not the copyright holder of this image, you are not allowed to publish this (copyrighted) image under a free licence. The fact that this poster hung in a public place is irrelevant in this case. --High Contrast (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused image - out of scope, no illustration of homelessness, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Jordan has in principle the same copyright law as Israel; Israeli free-information layers argue that such signs are "useful" and "applied art", but that is a rather far-fetched interpretation of British-style FoP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (seems to be a German(?) student) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
strange private image - collage?! - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused unknown interieur - out of scope, unusable, advertisment? Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
useless JPEG original from file:STS-133 patch.png Ras67 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no objection as this is a jpg, and a better png is uploaded and being used on Wiki.--NavyBlue84 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - schoolgirl from jamaice, obviously wrong description (not really in scope) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I had tagged this with a no-source template, which uploader removed without revealing his sources; see also subsequent dialogue on talk page. I identified http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/Suzanne-Lachelier-1.jpg as one of the sources; that photo is possibly not free. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This drawing was created from scratch after I examined a number of images of Commander Lachelier. I had never seen Suzanne-Lachelier-1.jpg before. I think that Kuiper's positive identification of an image that I had never seen before as a source for my drawing is a proof that his judgement in the matter is without merit. Rama (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Three problems with this photo.
- No verifiable source: it points to a dead image link, which would not have provided information to support the photo's copyright status anyway (we need the relevant page that displayed the image with relevant data, e.g. where it was published, who created it, and when).
- PD-Japan is for photos created before 1946, which this photo is not: Japan was at war with US and did not surrender until 2 September 1945, and Katsura only met Greenleaf (US soldier) in 1947.
- Failing the creation criteria, the other is for the photo to be published before 1956. However, no information is provided to verify this; a reminder oft-seen forgotten: creation does not equal publication, and if this photo was only published some time after Mastuyama's death (in a post-mortem biography or in Katsura's), then it could still be copyrighted to its author in Japan.
In short, the copyright status of this photo in its country of origin (Japan) is not backed by verifiable information. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader. I can only deduce certain things from having written her article through reliable sources, such as that I know this had to have been snapped between 1947 and 1951 in Japan, but I have no idea who took it, or when it was first published. It is highly likely it was published near the time it was taken based on context, but I can't verify this. Not that it matters but note that the image comes up fine through the external link if you copy the url and paste into your browser's address bar, but does not work when you click on the link.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment It was probably published by 1951. The evidence is speculative, but [9] is an article from Scene: the international East-West magazine, Volume 3, page 70, describing this game, and it's almost certain that this picture, or a very similar one, accompanied it. It would help if someone with some knowledge of Japanese could tell us if the caption helps, and possibly search for it in Google Books or similar Japanese databases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I had enlisted the help of WikiProject Japan to help with the article, with translations, with finding Japanese language sources, etc., and they found this image, but were not able to provide what it was published in. The caption was translated, but I can't seem to find where I asked that and got an answer, but my memory is that it wasn't helpful, I think it said who was in the picture, but nothing otherwise useful for locating the photographer or date of publication.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree your request at this thread then received little help in this matter. On Scene, if it was published in 1951's Scene (which seems to feature a photo of unknown content by Tosh Komura on that page),[10] we would still need to know if it was first published in Japan. If it was first published in US or published in US within 30 days of its publication in Japan, the US would be the country of origin instead of Japan and the photo is treated as US published material for consideration (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm). Jappalang (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- There were a few other discussions, at the language reference desk, at my talk page and via email. I can't see any good reason to think this came from Scene and not somewhere else. It could have been published in one of her two books, or numerous other places. She was quite famous at the time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree your request at this thread then received little help in this matter. On Scene, if it was published in 1951's Scene (which seems to feature a photo of unknown content by Tosh Komura on that page),[10] we would still need to know if it was first published in Japan. If it was first published in US or published in US within 30 days of its publication in Japan, the US would be the country of origin instead of Japan and the photo is treated as US published material for consideration (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm). Jappalang (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I had enlisted the help of WikiProject Japan to help with the article, with translations, with finding Japanese language sources, etc., and they found this image, but were not able to provide what it was published in. The caption was translated, but I can't seem to find where I asked that and got an answer, but my memory is that it wasn't helpful, I think it said who was in the picture, but nothing otherwise useful for locating the photographer or date of publication.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as uploaders request abf «Cabale!» 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"NARD - PLEASE DELETE THIS PHOTO. I have deleted from my Flickr account. PLEASE DELETE THE COMMENT SECTION ALSO. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordO (talk • contribs) " -Nard the Bard 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
While I would generally say "keep the damned photo, you cannot rescind licensing it freely", I recognise this is a special case as it shows the subject in a compromising position he may no longer appreciate being public. We have File:BallStretcher.jpg which demonstrates a "testicle cuff" just as effectively, although not in the same context. I guess if it's shown that User:LordO has demonstrably tried to remove all erm, "naked" photos of himself from the internet, I support removing it. If this is a one-off thing, I support keeping it. Max Rebo Band (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As genitalia are shown with no face nor other publically identifiable aspects of the person photographed, I suggest that personality rights are not relevent to this image. I don't know if the practice shown makes it within Commons scope or not; perhaps keeping or deleting should be based on that question. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep It's useful, freely licensed and the subject's identity is not revealed. If the photographer wishes to hide their identity we could offer to replace it with a pseudonym. --Simonxag (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep agree with the above reasons, & it's not a topic where we have a lot of comparable material to replace it with. once you put it out there on the internet, it's out there, on the internet, & CC'ing a file is not a thing you can take back.
also, can we even establish that the person requesting removal is the subject and/or author? if the person requesting deletion is the subject in the photo, i can sympathize, but assuming the rights are legit all the way thru, then it's a keep. don't see any need to retain any personally identifying info tho; that could be dropped. fair compromise?
Lx 121 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep High quality. Within scope. Nemissimo (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
subject's identity is not revealed Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Pornographic, poor quality, out of scope, not linked to except on a single user page (clean-up project) JN466 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The author previously asked me to help him delete this photo from Commons. -Nard the Bard 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Of zero educational value. Peter Damian (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that issue is no longer valid since the image is now in use at w:Ball stretcher as a perfect and unique irreplacable image. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, why is there no template on the image? And further, we already had a vote on this image, and it was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping. Democracy wins. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image is not pornografic; quality OK. Within scope. Nemissimo (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No Pornography according to German (or as far as I know any other European) law. Same goes for the other BDSM-images shown here. --TheK (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not pornography... but Nard the Bard's position is enough for me. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Of zero educational value. Antonsusi (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that issue is no longer valid since the image is now in use at w:Ball stretcher as a perfect and unique irreplacable image. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Nard the Bard. Trycatch (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete a desirable wikipedia clean-up. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Why are we discussing it again? See one DR above--DieBuche (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Only used on one user's talk page, the first vote Max Rebo Band. Uploaded by him. Scope says that such are not allowed as we are not a host of personal images for a gallery on user pages as this image is. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that issue is no longer valid since the image is now in use at w:Ball stretcher as a perfect and unique irreplacable image. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep not pornographic, no truly equivalent image, usable for articles, within scope. DGG (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per Nard –SJ+ 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete, per user's request and above reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that issue is no longer valid since the image is now in use at w:Ball stretcher as a perfect and unique irreplacable image. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Nard. Garion96 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Qualifies as speedy delete as user requested the img to be deleted. Plus as of 08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC) NOT used in any of Wikimedia projects. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the photographer requesting an image be deleted, or the subject of a non-identifiable image, is not a qualification for deletion. Please do not make up fictitious policies to support your attempts to censor WMF. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is a very valid qualification for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the photographer requesting an image be deleted, or the subject of a non-identifiable image, is not a qualification for deletion. Please do not make up fictitious policies to support your attempts to censor WMF. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason for deletion --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The author requested deletion and it is such a poor quality image. Gobonobo (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We should not be holding people to grant of license in situations like this. Let's not be actively evil here. Guy 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- May!=March. -Nard the Bard 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nemissimo has !voted "Keep" twice on this page (three times if you count the vote he accidentally placed in the old deletion discussion above); once on 8 May 2010, and once on 26 May 2010. I've struck one of his !votes in the current discussion.
- Given that this now has more than 2/3 support for deletion, with no new !votes registered for over two weeks, and the subject himself asked for deletion, could someone please do the decent thing here? --JN466 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- And why was the earlier discussion closed with "subject's identity is not revealed"? The file has a link to the individual's Flickr account, stating his name and full professional details (he deleted the info once, was reverted, and asked for the info to be removed in the original deletion request above). --JN466 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the author's Flickrstream, it appears he took the photograph at a street fair (see file description). If I understand correctly, this was never about the depicted subject's identity (comments in the earlier discussion notwithstanding), but about the photographer, who did not want to have his name permanently associated with the image. Indeed, if you do a google image search for the Flickr account holder's name, this image comes up on page 5, even with moderate search settings. --JN466 17:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly endorse deleting the identifying info. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've courtesy blanked the name. [11] Max, I think this is something to keep in mind if you use explicit images from Flickr (especially cropped images) in future. If the full picture appears among many others from the same parade in the user's Flickrstream, the impact is completely different than if it appears when you google the man and get this as one of the first matches for his name.
- Having cleared this up, perhaps we should restart the deletion discussion, and come to a conclusion at some point in the not too distant future. The first deletion discussion took nearly 4 months, and this one is getting long in the tooth too. --JN466 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly endorse deleting the identifying info. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Testicle_Cuff_with_Weights.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=40399707){kind=link}
Please place new !votes after the Re-start in the section below.
- Re-start
I think we should restart this deletion discussion, as it appears that at least some editors in the above discussions may have been under a misapprehension as to what the issue was. To start with, I do not believe that the image actually depicts the uploader, who asked us for deletion. From looking at his Flickrstream, it appears he took this image at the Folsom Street Fair, and the original, uncropped image showed one of the participants at that fair. However, as our file page listed the photographer by name (with a link to his Flickr account, which in turn includes his full name and professional details), this file comes up as a prominent search result in any google (image) search for his name, even in moderate search. In addition, many viewers may have been, like some editors above, under the erroneous impression that he was the subject depicted. I have now courtesy-blanked the name on the file page (it is still available in the file history) and made the circumstances under which the photo was taken clearer, so that particular aspect should no longer be a concern. I myself will abstain from the vote, but it would be good to have this deletion request, which has spent almost half a year in discussion, settled. --JN466 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hello. You started your request under the title "clean-up project". Can you provide a link for this project? I would like to know more about this project. Teofilo (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that I am telling you anything new here, unless you've just come back from six weeks offline, but about a month ago, Jimbo Wales called on the community to clean up pictures of gratuitous sexual content and pornography on the site that did not appear to have any redeeming educational value. This was partly in response to media coverage, notably by Fox News, alleging that Commons hosted porn (see Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge). That was the initiative I was referring to. Since then, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. While a fair number of gratuitous amateur porn pictures were deleted a month ago and have stayed deleted, Jimbo's initiative was also massively opposed by the community, which felt that it was going too far – even deleting historic pictures by notable artists – and was trying to impose unrepresentatively prude standards on Commons. --JN466 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have read Jimbo's message again: he doesn't use clean/unclean language. I think the message is easier to understand if it does not contain clean/unclean language. Teofilo (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then let me point you to this diff: [12]. But who said what 5 weeks ago is hardly relevant to whether we keep this file or not, is it? Today, I wouldn't write what I wrote on 8 May either. --JN466 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have read Jimbo's message again: he doesn't use clean/unclean language. I think the message is easier to understand if it does not contain clean/unclean language. Teofilo (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that I am telling you anything new here, unless you've just come back from six weeks offline, but about a month ago, Jimbo Wales called on the community to clean up pictures of gratuitous sexual content and pornography on the site that did not appear to have any redeeming educational value. This was partly in response to media coverage, notably by Fox News, alleging that Commons hosted porn (see Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge). That was the initiative I was referring to. Since then, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. While a fair number of gratuitous amateur porn pictures were deleted a month ago and have stayed deleted, Jimbo's initiative was also massively opposed by the community, which felt that it was going too far – even deleting historic pictures by notable artists – and was trying to impose unrepresentatively prude standards on Commons. --JN466 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Article which has been created for this image has also been deletet (w:Ball stretcher). And the image is by no means high quality! Amada44 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete author requested deletion --High Contrast (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, we have removed the identifying information of the photo, now it is useful in articles about Testicle Stretchers, Cock & Ball Torture and BDSM. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per all of the above. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Claims above that the subject is not identifiable are false. As this has become the primary example listed at m:Talk:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content#Examples of controversial or potentially controversial Wikimedia content, oversight administrators might want to carefully consider whether there is a way to delete both the image and the name of the subject if it appears elsewhere in locations it may be associated with caches of the image. 71.198.176.22 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Not particularly useful, not in use, author requested deletion... more trouble than anything. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No source. Why should it be PD? 78.55.109.3 06:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Utter garbage description giving insultingly absurd misinformation. This is an embarasment to Wikimedia that something like this is used in article space. Such a photo might or might not be PD for some reason, but without actual information there is no way to deterimine this; unless a drastic fix is provided Delete Infrogmation (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Lacks licensing information. Blacklake (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a non-trival logo as claimed, there are clear artistic elements in the image shown. Enwiki Duplicate here w:File:Opekta.jpg is tagged as non-free. Source listed - http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?pid=113&lid=2 appears to be a dead link. The site concerned generally claims '© Anne Frank Stichting' - EU copyright terms are life+70 so the logo design may still be copyright in EU countries. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep anonymous pre-WWII. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Non-trivial logo, no indication of being in the public domain. Logo not "anonymous" (we don't know who the author is, that doesn't make it anonymous. Anonymous works are marked as such). "Pre-WWII" is irrelevant, the author could concievably even still be alive. Rama (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Getty gives a 1933 date for this, apparently on the authority of the Anne Frank Foundation. Otto Frank probably just ordered this at an advertisement agency. Probably even he never knew who made this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous work with expired copyright. -Nard the Bard 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
faulty license Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So change it! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - license changed - Jcb (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Author: w:Otto Frank Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I realize this was nominated before but this reasoning was never addressed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but I don't understand you. How do we know that Otto Frank is the author, and why does it matter? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because he was the owner of the company, he is quite likely the author. And it matters because this would make it unfree in Germany until 2051. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Though it still doesn't really matter that he's the author, because if we don't know, we always have to assume the worst. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess in retrospect, it might have been a work for hire by an anonymous individual, but it also might not have been. Even if it is anonymous, the question becomes, when was this item first published? We'll want to use Dutch law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The text is in Dutch, not German, so the country of origin is possibly the Netherlands instead. Not sure if this affects the definition of "anonymous work". In Germany, the rule seems to be that a work isn't anonymous if the identity of the author has been made available to the public by anyone, but in the EU directive, it says that a work is anonymous if the identity of the author hasn't been made available to the public by the copyright holder. Germany uses the old terms for old works, but I don't know what terms the Netherlands use. Also, hm, would it be possible to identify the author by, for example, looking at old lists of employees, or by reading old taxation documents? Are such documents made available to the public within 70 years after publication? I suppose that it could affect whether the identity of the author has been made available to the public. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess in retrospect, it might have been a work for hire by an anonymous individual, but it also might not have been. Even if it is anonymous, the question becomes, when was this item first published? We'll want to use Dutch law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Though it still doesn't really matter that he's the author, because if we don't know, we always have to assume the worst. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because he was the owner of the company, he is quite likely the author. And it matters because this would make it unfree in Germany until 2051. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Not PD in the US, copyright only expired in India in 2002 (after 1996). fetchcomms☛ 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with an additional tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we can't use it why keep it? Esuzu (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to care about that treaty, and it seems to be unconsitutional anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. As Pieter Kuiper said, nobody seems to care about that treaty. Yann (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with URAA notice. —innotata 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. These days we do actually care about the URAA, and obviously it was not ruled unconstitutional. Image is an Indian photo published in 1942. Indian photos published 1941 or later have a copyright term of 60 years from publication, so it was copyrighted until 2002, after the 1996 URAA date in India (consistent with Fetchcomms above), and so remains copyrighted in the US until 2038. Like all PD-India images, can and will be reuploaded to Wikilivres. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Before 1957, it was 50 years pma. So this became in the PD at the end of 1992. Yann (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Really? It seems quite rare that such laws don't extend the length of copyright for works still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, photos published before 1941 were in the public domain on the URAA date, but this one was published in 1942. Is the information on Wikipedia wrong? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- India's extension was not retroactive, in the sense that works already in the public domain in 1991 did not have their term extended, but any works still in copyright in 1991 did have their terms extended to 60 pma, and this was very much the intention of the amendment. See en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_india: "India extended its general term from 50 to 60 years in Act 13 of 1992, effective from December 31, 1991. The change was made in part to further protect the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941." Dcoetzee (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Really? It seems quite rare that such laws don't extend the length of copyright for works still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per Dcoetzee -FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the photographer. The photographer would remember the date when the picture was taken. There is no snow in Jordan in June. Teofilo (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
http://fr.weather.yahoo.com/jordanie/'amman/amman-1968902/ says the temperature today varies from 22 to 34° Celcius. Teofilo (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not convinced -- the date is the date of the upload -- it is very easy to imagine that the photographer did not understand what date belonged in the box, or simply made a mistake. He or she has uploaded other photos in that area. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have edited the date of the photograph to the 3rd of February 2006, forgive me for any inconveniences this may have caused. :-) Thank you. Ymousa (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Thank you, Ymousa for this and other good work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Malraux died 1976. Rama's claiming to be "I, the copyright holder of this work" with that grand license template is a bit too much. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep only a tiny portion of the text is visible, making the photograph acceptable by the de minimis doctrine. The subject of the photograph is the physical object, not the text. Rama (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a special admin subterfuge, see also File talk:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- ZOMG, admin subterfuge !!! Rama (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a special admin subterfuge, see also File talk:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright paranoia. Esby (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete but the picture might be uploaded directly on the French Wikipedia as fr:Droit de courte citation (if the excerpt is short enough, say less than 5% of the speech. If not short enough, you may crop the picture to remove more text) or the English Wikipedia as "Fair use". Teofilo (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you take the 5% value from? Actually the text being shown represents 7% of the overall text (either by counting words (200/2713 words) or characters (1202/16808 characters)) [13]. While this might qualify for 'droit de citation', this only applies to a textual version, not to a phograph of the text. Assuming de-minimis here is still the best practice/option. What's the point of saying it's a copyright infrigement when the text is freely available on the web from legal sources? Esby (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- From nowhere. Just a way of saying that "small" has to be seen in proportion of the text length rather than in absolute terms. If the excerpt is "only" one page but the full text is two pages, that makes 50% and it is too much although "one page" is not very much (But one page from a 500 pages book might be OK). The proportion in comparison with the quoting text must also be appreciated (that means that the Wikipedia article where it is inserted must be long enough). "freely available" : what do you mean by free ? "Gratuitement" or "sous licence libre" ? Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Freely available does not necessarily implies a free licence, neither it implies the gratis aspect. You perfectly know what I meant here: You and I are not in position to estimate how the 'droit de citation' would apply here. This is just irrelevant as the subject of the photograph is not the oeuvra but rather the physical support, including the striked annotation. This is just copyright paranoia: Are we going to retouch the image and erase the words so we can show a version that does not infringe the copyright of the author, which might be especially be funny when the person watching the image is not talking french... No, since it would be an attempt to the author's moral rights, and no since it would be ridiculous, which is where de-minimis comes into play... Esby (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were publishing a page of a published work, it would worry me less, but that annotation is exactly the type of unpublished copyrighted material that is protected strongly by copyright (cf. Salinger and his letters; more cynically, it's the stuff that sells new editions.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also have some doubts when it is to consider as 'unpublished' a text that is exposed publically in a museum since a few years already. Esby (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were publishing a page of a published work, it would worry me less, but that annotation is exactly the type of unpublished copyrighted material that is protected strongly by copyright (cf. Salinger and his letters; more cynically, it's the stuff that sells new editions.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Freely available does not necessarily implies a free licence, neither it implies the gratis aspect. You perfectly know what I meant here: You and I are not in position to estimate how the 'droit de citation' would apply here. This is just irrelevant as the subject of the photograph is not the oeuvra but rather the physical support, including the striked annotation. This is just copyright paranoia: Are we going to retouch the image and erase the words so we can show a version that does not infringe the copyright of the author, which might be especially be funny when the person watching the image is not talking french... No, since it would be an attempt to the author's moral rights, and no since it would be ridiculous, which is where de-minimis comes into play... Esby (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- From nowhere. Just a way of saying that "small" has to be seen in proportion of the text length rather than in absolute terms. If the excerpt is "only" one page but the full text is two pages, that makes 50% and it is too much although "one page" is not very much (But one page from a 500 pages book might be OK). The proportion in comparison with the quoting text must also be appreciated (that means that the Wikipedia article where it is inserted must be long enough). "freely available" : what do you mean by free ? "Gratuitement" or "sous licence libre" ? Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it seems a lot like trying to make a distinction between the physical object of the painting and what's painted there. Manuscripts also tend to get more protection from courts then published works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: the present photograph would be a very poor document if the goal was to provide the text of Malraux' speech (unlike a photograph of a painting that provides the entirety of the painting). The aim of the photograph is to show how the speech was printed, bound, annotated, etc. There would probably be clearly no problem if it was the cover that was displayed, and I believe that, given the tiny proportion of the text featured, this more or less entails that there is no problem there either. Rama (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Oh, but this is just one photo out of a heavy book" - "Why would anyone complain - it is just one frame of a two-hour movie" - "Just a small corner of the painting won't matter". - "The whole thing is on the web."
- All this is not what de minimis is about. Admins know better than that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: the present photograph would be a very poor document if the goal was to provide the text of Malraux' speech (unlike a photograph of a painting that provides the entirety of the painting). The aim of the photograph is to show how the speech was printed, bound, annotated, etc. There would probably be clearly no problem if it was the cover that was displayed, and I believe that, given the tiny proportion of the text featured, this more or less entails that there is no problem there either. Rama (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The discussion above confuses de minimis with fair use. De minimus is when the copyrighted thing (sculpture, painting, building, whatever) is only a small part of the photo. It is permitted on Commons, but doesn't apply here. Fair use is, among other things, the use of a small portion of a work in a review -- the same thing as "droit de citation", I would guess. Fair use is not permitted here because it is specific to the use of the copyrighted material -- we don't put images up on Commons with a tag "you may use this image only in a critical review or historical citation". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is not much debate. The subject of the photograph, as Rama said is the manuscript. Sadly, it is impossible to show the manuscript without showing the text. It's not about fair-use, which is an american legal notion, and its supposed counterpart 'Droit de citation', which stricly applies to text and not photographs. It's de minimis, because the reader can know the state of conservation and the number of corrections that were done on the original document, This without understanding french. This is about the state of the medium the oeuvra is archived on, not about the oeuvra itself, hence the de-minimis. Esby (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the reader may not know French is a defense to copying a work in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just one rationale for de-minimis. The text content in itself does not matter, only what matters is its physical looking, I used the non-french example to clearly illustrate this point. Esby (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- The text is essential; a replica with different words would have no interest whatsoever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, the fact the text and more importantly the manuscript is authentical is essential here, authentical supposes it was not altered. Esby (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- The text is essential; a replica with different words would have no interest whatsoever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just one rationale for de-minimis. The text content in itself does not matter, only what matters is its physical looking, I used the non-french example to clearly illustrate this point. Esby (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the reader may not know French is a defense to copying a work in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear and obvious copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
i got new one UCSD Jay (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
QuestionIf this image is obsolete, where do we find the replacement, please? Or, if that is not what you mean, then what do you mean? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is not free use as it was taken by a private photographer and donated to the US government. --58.152.255.147 11:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Source site says that photographer is Steve Petteway. He also made File:John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg and File:Supreme Court US 2006.jpg. I would say Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to his LinkedIn profile] Petteway is "Photographer at Supreme Court of the United States" and an employee of a "Government Agency". That makes the tag on these correct. Further evidence that he is not a private photographer is that I can't find a personal web site, which you would certainly expect for a private professional photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Me he equivocado de imagen al subirla, no sé donde está la opción de borrado. Antonio362 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Es un error me equivoqué al subirla. Antonio362 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Trademarked logo - Not FAL as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Enwiki duplicate here : w:File:TNGopeninglogo.png for reference. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Changed tag to {{PD-textlogo}} which makes it a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Akira Kurosawa films
[edit]All files from the category The Quiet Duel should be deleted (too many to list here). I feel really bad now, because I've taken and uploaded them by myself, but Template:PD-Japan-film states that films by Akira Kurosawa (died 1998) remain copyrighted until 2036. Unfortunately, this information was added to the template after mass screencaps upload. At that moment, back in 2009, I had no idea about Kurosawa being an exception from "public domain prior to 1953" rule. The same thing with Category:Scandal (1950 film). I know I should add deletion template to each file, but there are too many of them, maybe it could be done by the bot? -- deerstop. 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.01.52.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.03.31.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.03.49.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.04.29.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.06.35.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.08.36.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.08.45.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.09.21.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.13.50.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.14.46.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.16.55.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.18.09.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.18.40.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.19.49.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.20.19.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.20.28.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.20.32.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.21.32.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.24.09.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.24.54.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.25.43.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.25.52.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.27.59.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.28.00.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.28.29.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.28.45.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.29.22.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.29.40.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.30.31.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.31.08.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.32.04.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.33.44.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.35.37.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.37.34.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.38.58.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.40.56.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.43.20.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.43.31.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.44.19.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.47.19.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.47.28.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.49.07.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.49.22.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.51.28.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.56.46.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.57.17.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.58.11.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-0.58.16.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.03.12.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.03.14.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.03.19.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.03.57.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.04.35.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.05.17.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.07.08.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.08.57.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.12.38.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.12.39.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.12.40.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.13.03.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.13.35.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.23.22.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.24.35.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.24.47.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.27.18.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.27.59.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.29.37.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.30.38.jpg
- File:The Quiet Duel-1.31.24.jpg
- File:Scandal - Bokuzen Hidari (1).jpg
- File:Scandal - Bokuzen Hidari (2).jpg
- File:Scandal - Bokuzen Hidari (3).jpg
- File:Scandal - Bokuzen Hidari (4).jpg
- File:Scandal - Tanie Kitabayashi.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 1.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 10.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 11.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 12.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 13.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 14.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 15.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 16.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 17.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 18.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 19.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 2.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 20.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 21.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 22.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 23.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 24.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 25.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 26.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 27.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 28.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 29.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 3.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 30.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 31.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 32.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 33.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 34.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 35.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 36.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 37.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 38.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 39.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 4.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 40.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 41.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 42.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 43.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 44.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 45.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 46.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 47.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 48.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 49.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 5.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 50.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 51.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 52.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 53.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 54.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 55.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 56.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 57.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 58.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 59.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 6.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 60.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 61.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 62.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 63.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 64.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 65.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 66.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 67.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 68.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 69.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 7.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 70.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 71.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 72.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 73.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 74.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 75.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 76.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 77.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 78.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 8.jpg
- File:Scandal 1950 - 9.jpg
- File:Shirley Yamaguchi as Miyako Saijo.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)