Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Worse version of File:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916 Cover.png Pullus In Fabula (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. Amada44 talk to me 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The trademarked Apple logo is part of this image. 84.61.151.145 14:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a reason for deletion. I added a trademark template. Matt (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trademark != Copyright DieBuche (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
duplicated image Anenja (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Uploader request
Non-commercial use (Source image is DSS2) Kheider (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Commons:Deletion requests/Wikisky-DSS2
File:KZ_Gedenkstätte_Wiesbaden_Unter_den_Eichen_-_SS-Flachbunker_BJ_1944_in_dessen_Inneren_die_Ausstellung_präsentiert_wird.JPG
[edit]mdjuxhs,znal be 82.12.211.135 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, non admin closure. Vandalism nomination. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Schöpfungshöhe? --Sebari (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep PD-ineligible or PD-GDR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- What should PD-GDR be? IMO there is only PD-GDR stamps. --axel (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not much difference between this and stamps. Published by entities that do no exist anymore. Nobody can claim copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- What should PD-GDR be? IMO there is only PD-GDR stamps. --axel (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ein geschichtsträchtiges Dokument! DerKorken (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter DieBuche (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to upload a digitally enchanced version without any filehistory. Anwqel112 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment image is in use. I would suggest uploading the enhanced version under a different name (even adding spaces to the file name would make it a separate file), and substituting the new image in article space, then call for deletion of this one as lower quality orphan duplicate. Infrogmation (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
New file name: File:Dr_GhulamHussain.jpg so File:DrGhulamHussain.jpg is now lower quality orphan. You can go ahead and delete it now thanks for the help.--Anwqel112 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request. Orphan duplicate of File:Dr_GhulamHussain.jpg Infrogmation (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused and out of scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ateshcommonslogo.PNG: Unused and out of scope.
Unused and out of scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ateshlogo.PNG: Unused and out of scope.
entorse au reglement. 88.176.220.5 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Has been in use on the Vietnamese wikipedia since March 2009; Commons must not censor wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:SEX. In use->In scope->to be kept. Also, this is obviously a medical picture (deformity) --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept In use, depicts medical condition, decent photographic quality; no reason to delete. Infrogmation (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
qtrly 202.134.194.132 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Jovianeye (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, in use in multiple languages, no reason for deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Same problem as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boediono 2009.png. –Tryphon☂ 08:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright 2009 : Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI. They obviously publish this images with the required copyright notice intentionally to keep the copyright controll. --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is disrespectful of the Israel national flag 157.161.133.246 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong name, replaced by File:Drouwnerzand natuurgebied in de winter2.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- So just use {{Duplicate}}, no need to bring it here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Common Good: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Drouwnerzand natuurgebied in de winter2.jpg
Nad usunięciem pracowałem już wczoraj. 81.190.244.98 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-shape}} + {{Trademarked}}. -- Common Good (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Nad usunięciem pracowałem już wczoraj. 81.190.244.98 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-shape}} + {{Trademarked}}. -- Common Good (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
self-promotion Leonardo (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Potentially useful. As far as I know, the fact that an image is self-promotional isn't a strict bar against having it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept - in use (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
©Thefx in the picture; permission of pictured persons of being photographed uncertain Garitzko (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because it was uploaded by User:Thefx....--DieBuche (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know Chilean law on this, but in most countries one does not need any permission from people photographed in public. Does someone know Chilean law on this? Personality rights would obtain, but that's a non-copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, clearly own work, no other reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The person who originally uploaded this to the English Wikipedia also uploaded a few other photos of Sion Sono that clearly aren't public domain (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SionSono.png). Odds are this isn't either. Prezbo (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed for use by one specific user to another specific user. Therefore no meaningful use to anyone beyond the original creator. Ubcule (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png. Kameraad Pjotr 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed for use by one specific user to another specific user. Therefore no meaningful use to anyone beyond the original creator. Ubcule (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png. Kameraad Pjotr 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed for use by one specific user to another specific user. Therefore no meaningful use to anyone beyond the original creator. Ubcule (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png. Kameraad Pjotr 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed for use by one specific user to another specific user. Therefore no meaningful use to anyone beyond the original creator. Ubcule (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- ok, delete. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed for use by one specific user to another specific user. Therefore no meaningful use to anyone beyond the original creator. Ubcule (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png. Kameraad Pjotr 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; designed with one specific use/person in mind, and incredibly unlikely to add to utility of Commons Ubcule (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional, this is part of a group of similar files that have all been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForMatthew.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForBlnguyen.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAlison.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForAcalamari.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForPNT.png. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete all, per nom.--E8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ForHirohisat.png. Kameraad Pjotr 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicata de File:Fosse Blignières à Wavrechain.jpg JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- So just use {{Duplicate}}, no need to bring it here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. Kameraad Pjotr 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This file is nearly an exact duplicate of File:Goethekotzte.JPG. Mercy (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like an exact duplicate. Just use {{Duplicate}}, no need to bring it here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, exact duplicate. Kameraad Pjotr 09:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/irondequoit/images/board_mary.jpg DanielPenfield (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. And sole contribution from account. Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted commercial logo 188.146.145.184 12:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure whether it reaches the threshold of originality for copyright. Opinions sought. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, passes threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
user probably doesn't freely licence this, probably just chose a licence not to get the image deleted... grillo (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- User is most likely not copyright holder, but that's rather irrelevant, as this logo passes PD-textlogo. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, but removed the copyrightable part of the logo. Kameraad Pjotr 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This image is not linked from anywhere and is no longer useful as it is. Momoko (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Potentially useful and is, in fact, used in a Hungarian wikibook. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept - in use (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not used in any projects and does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Quibik (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. no educational value. --Elekhh (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - privy.--E8 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Soory my błąd OGlorioso (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of
. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
_Signature.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Although the tag says it is in public domain it has a copyright watermark Copana2002 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep presuming description and tag are correct. Photo taken in British Mandate Palestine more than 51 years ago is PD even if someone else adds a copyright watermark to it. Infrogmation (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept per Infrogmation (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned image of questionable image quality and usefulness Bueller 007 (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept - image is in use (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
it is very bad 66.66.113.235 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Small and low resolution, but is in use in multiple projects. Infrogmation (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept - in use (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
delet Щербинин Юрий (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tentative keep subject to change if someone can explain why this should be deleted. Request for deletion is by uploader, but he doesn't say why to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Well, possibly it's because the title is misspelled (аадемический instead of академический). But there is no FOP in Ukraine (and the building was created in 1970—1990), so this image really should be deleted. Trycatch (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per Trycatch- no FOP. Misspelling is a reason to move, not delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
User:HFprofemail uploaded several pictures of Helen Fielding in summer last yaer. All have been deleted cause there is no evidence that the user has taken the pictures (they look like press photographs). This one is still here and I doubt that the user took the photo esp. conc. the fact that all other photos he uploaded were copyright violations. Paulae (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is the same as File:Vasil Levski 2nd.jpg, but lower quality Exonie (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This one is 30k, the other 1002k, but I see no great difference i quality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Improper license. Νot made by user, taken from here illyricum, among other issues.Megistias (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of an older version of File:PrefectureIllyricum.png; not in use, strange description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
seems to be flickrwashing, user openDemocracy can't be the photographer, because he hosts different military photos shot by various photographers, images from the canadian military are under copyright. So the image has to be considered copyrighted and therefore has to be deleted. Zaccarias (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It is unclear whether this signature meets the minimum labour and skill requirements in order for it to be considered copyright-eligible in Canada (the file's source country). As such, I request that this file be removed from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, in keeping with the precautionary principle set out here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP. 192.197.82.205 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. We have many signatures -- see Category:Signatures. I doubt whether copyright applies. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The rights have not been given to publish this picture 74.59.82.59 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Album cover, copyvio. -Nard the Bard 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
File is an orphan--no pages in WIkipedia link to it. In addition, the copyright information provided is incorrect. If this postcard is really from 1904, then it is probably public-domain, and thus the image uploader does not have the right to upload it under a GNU, CC or copyleft license under the pretence of being the copyright holder. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Feel free to correct licensing tags, but there is no reason to make a deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use on WP:JA, tag has been corrected. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Better version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LehiRibbon.jpg 217.132.34.102 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Better version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LehiRibbon.jpg 217.132.34.102 11:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
racist description Garitzko (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then correct it!--DieBuche (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I've removed the ethnic insult, but problem goes beyond insulting description; source given as "desconocido" (unknown), looks like image yoinked from website, not used. Infrogmation (talk)
- Delete: source & copyright status unclear. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, don't known whet the author, P. Riihimaa, died but as the monument was unveiled in 1938 it's likely not PD yet. A333 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is this not a building? I think it qualifies as such. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a promo shot. With the information provided, it's extremely unlikely that this user is the copyright holder of the picture Nymf (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Sole contribution by user, "own work" seems very unlikely. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation (work of art of a living artist inside a museum, no indication why it should be free) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Although this was displayed as a work of art, I'm not at all sure it rises to the level of copyrightable. Also, if it is considered a sculpture at that date in the US, it would have needed a copyright notice, which I would doubt it had. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a probable copyvio, compare this with exactly half the pixel size but better sharpness. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Redundant Svgalbertian (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The image is an exact scaled down duplicate of File:NYCS-bull-trans-Ad.svg. It is not used in any articles and there are no concivable uses for it in the future. It is not required for any image "attribution path". It is not a "hand-tweeked PNG" and offers no advatages over the autogenerated PNG created from the SVG.--Svgalbertian (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio Svgalbertian (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Majority of the users photos ([1]) on Wikipedia have proven to be copyright violations, this particular photo is of an unusual size and lacks meta-data.--Svgalbertian (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a musical notation of a composition, which doesn't belong to PD neither is free licensed, therefore it's the samy CV as scan of text or similar. Masur (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a musical notation of a composition, which doesn't belong to PD neither is free licensed, therefore it's the samy CV as scan of text or similar. Masur (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A screenshoot using a nonfree operating system ( windows Vista ) , while VLC is free softftware and crossplatform . This photo ha another version on linux 41.153.157.210 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing protectable in this screenshot, not even the window icons. Clear Keep --Denniss (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Our policy is that most screenshots do not fail our keep-test just because the software happens to be running under an MS OS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused category, the Category:Cats by country hierarchy serves its purpose. 134.96.220.122 09:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) --134.96.220.122 09:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused catagory. Its purpose is served by the Category:Cats by country hierarchy. --134.96.220.122 09:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
it is supposedly "Own work" but under author it says "?" Plrk (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author has provided much good work -- "?" was probably error, now fixed. I'm inclined to believe him or her. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
meaningless screenshot Plrk (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. We have a variety of stars -- why not? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a derivative of a presumably non-free, copyrighted work. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably copyrighted, non-free model. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
My own image, which I now realize was a mistake to upload. Inferior to this image taken by me at the same time. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
a bit strange unused drawing / figure - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
unused strange chinese (?) image - derivative work ? - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Changed from a speedy: "The uploader has had many copy vios according to his talk page and there is no permission from the author for this image to be used on WikiCommons. It failed panoramio review too. I doubt this was ever free. It is safer to delete given the uploader's history." The only reason for the change from a speedy to a DR is that is that file is used in many pages so I will try to find image and get a permission. MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I was the person who tagged this image with a speedy initially. When the uploader has 6 copyvio notices on his talkpage (not including this DR), I doubt that he has permission for this great photo sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately I would have to agree that without proof of a free license this image should be deleted. The history of the uploader does not make me believe that this image was ever free. I did find another picture of this building on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgarzuniga/3615513518/, not as good and the license is CC-BY-NC. I have sent a Flickrmail to the owner asking if he would remove the NC attribute so that we could upload the image. If he changes it I will upload and replace the usage. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I have not been able to find the image. We should delete per Leoboudv. --MGA73 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing of essential source information. --High Contrast (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Professional photo from 1974 with writing on it. All other uploads by the supposed author were copyright violations. On the whole, the authorship claims for this photo seem rather improbable. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3416071, which is marked "All rights reserved" —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
fair use Waihorace (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
privacy concerns - I'm the author of this file and the subject feels no longer comfortable with having his image displayed on wikipedia/-media and under a cc license and would be very grateful if it could be deleted. 91.55.82.88 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, If the subject truly had "privacy concerns", I doubt the image would still be available on your Flickr account - which it is as of the time of this comment. Instead you appear to have simply changed the licensing of your photos to "Copyrighted", which is actually non-binding and cannot be done as CC is non-revocable. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I, the subject, do have privacy concerns. I feel there is quite a difference between ones photo being available in a friends photostream and being the main picture on a number of wikipedia entries. Also I never actually consented to the picture being CC. This means the author did not have the rights to make it CC in the first place. 91.55.211.235 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I sympathise, just to enlighten you, the model's consent is irrelevant to the licensing of an image. You could potentially go launch a complaint against the photographer for making a "private" photo "public" - although you apparently have no qualms about the article appearing on Flickr where it's been viewed countless times by strangers -- but the image is CC since the author deemed it so. At best, it might be deleted as a personal favour to you. But legally speaking, the image is CC. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 06:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- This seems quite odd to me. I do not really know which laws apply to media in the wikicommons. At least under German Law a image can only be used according to the subjects consent. So I can give my consent to publish an image on Flickr but not use it further. Obviously German law does not apply to wikipedia.org but probably American does. And I am pretty sure my privacy is protected by that, too. (the subject) 131.220.7.1 16:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would obscuring your face be a acceptable comprimise? It's a well composed photo and I would hate to see it disappear. J.smith (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- That would be fine with me and I am pretty sure it would be fine with geier, too. (the subject) 131.220.7.1 16:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Uploaded File:MaleSub Bondage 2.jpg, please decide if it is good enough to allow for this file to be deleted. Totstrnger (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, thanks for the help. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Subject): That's ok with me, too. 131.220.7.1 07:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Subject does not consent; image not public on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per uploader/subject request, and as substitute has been produced. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Some Realities of this situation:
Anyone in today’s world should know that any picture placed on the internet is not only public, but likely taken by many who view it, and without a doubt is not private by anyone’s standard of imagination. Most photos will spread across the web no matter which website it is found upon.
If the model truly had privacy concerns the image would never have been published to the Web in the first place.
The Publication Issue:
“Once a photograph is communicated to a third person who sees and understands it, the photograph, in the eyes of the law has been published. Thus, if you show the photograph to someone other than the subject, you have published the photograph”
(The Law in Plain English for Photographers, Duboff, L, 2002, pg. 39)
Legal Concerns
Did the Model sign a Release, or was this a non-paid picture?
I do not know the details.
Did the Photographer provide permission to reproduce the image?
The CC license says yes to that.
References:
Duboff, L. (2002). The law in plain English for photographers. New York, NY: Allworth
Press.
Deleted, per Turelio. Kameraad Pjotr 10:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No author, no date, no info whether this is a contemporary drawing. So how can we know it is really PD? Rosenzweig δ 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, look at the source. I know that youtube.com is not a good source but the picture is real, compare this picture with the same at [[2]]. And in my opinion this picture is good to see and big enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheColonel (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2. Jan. 2010 (UTC)
- It's not if the image is big enough, it's simply that there is not enough information about it to determine if it is actually in the Public Domain as claimed. Who is the artist? When was the drawing made? --Rosenzweig δ 11:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source. Kameraad Pjotr 09:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Request from the author of the file --Rama (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The author of this file has requested deletion on the English Wikipedia [3]; I have contacted her and she confirms her desire to have the image removed as quickly as possible. The image is presently not available to the public on Flickr; I take it that the author has had second thoughts on he publications of this image.
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Baby_exploring_books.jpg){kind=link}
I believe that it would be a Good Thing to grant this request:
- the aim of Commons is not to gratuitously annoy people
- this image easy enough to replace (cameras are common, books are ubiquitour, and babies are reasonably widespread commodities). It is not technically a masterpiece of photographic art
- it would be a good opportunity to make a better image, akin to [4], [5] or [6]
![[6]](http://www.sanilacdistrictlibrary.lib.mi.us/Pictures/Baby%20reading%20book.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Rama (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete First, file was uploaded to Flickr under a free license and the file was reviewed. So we have every right to keep the image.
- However, there is no need for Commons to annoy people if it is easy to get a replacement. In this case it should be easy. All you need is a baby and a book.
- But the image is used in several pages so we should not rush a deletion. I therefore suggest that we look for a replacement and do not delete untill we have one. CommonsDelinker can replace usage if result is "delete". --MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have no objection to granting the request, but note that the image is in use in multiple projects, so replacements should be substituted in articles before image is deleted. While a baby or toddler with a book might seem a fairly common subject to photograph, with a quick look I didn't see many similar here on Commons. Possible substitute images for some places: File:20061027 p102706sc-0339-1-771v.jpg, File:US Army 53394 BOOK OF RHYMES.jpg, may not work in some articles (eg, not young enough for nursery school article). Infrogmation (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a couple other possibly useful replacements seen on Flickr and added to Category:Children with books. Infrogmation (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Infrogmation, that was most helpful.
- Would File:Kaitlyn reads a book..jpg be a suitable replacement for the present image? Rama (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite. The Kaitlyn-image does not show the atmosphere of a nursery (and in German Wikipedia the image was used in de:Kinderkrippe, to illustrate a nursery for under-three-year-olds). Ideally, someone who has their child in a nursery would go and take a picture...
- Delete I nonetheless agree to the deletion. --Carolin2006 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--LutzBruno (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Vituzzu (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
_Signature.png){kind=link}
_Signature.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I, the uploader of this file, accidentally copy-pasted wrong description Shinryuu (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
_Signature.png){kind=link}
- Comment: Do you mean that the filename or the file description is wrong? If the filename is wrong, just ask for it to be renamed by putting a {{Rename}} tag on it. If the file description is wrong, you can edit the file description page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Speedydelete
the source is not linked, and I doubt they really want to release their images Plrk (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Noncommercial}}. See http://www.multimedia.skolverket.se/Information/Medlemsskap-och-upphovsratt/. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
the source is not linked, and I doubt they really want to release their images Plrk (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Noncommercial}}. See http://www.multimedia.skolverket.se/Information/Medlemsskap-och-upphovsratt/. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - intended for school work. Also File:Tomte.gif. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The toes are to long, and the neck to long. The forelimbs are to thin, and the hindlegs shall not have knee caps. Conty (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep in use --Simonxag (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use on the Swedish Wikipedia. Eusebius (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Most people should probably say that it had filament feathers, and longer tail. The legs are to thin, and the toes to long. Conty (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Requested by uploader Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use on the Swedish Wikipedia. User appears to want most of his drawings to be deleted--DieBuche (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Les_Wriggles
[edit].jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Les Wriggles (28).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (32).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (15).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (16).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (17).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (18).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (19).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (20).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (21).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (22).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (23).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (24).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (25).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (26).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (27).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (29).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (30).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (31).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (33).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (27).jpg
- File:Les Wriggles (29).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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Uploader is asking for deletion and claiming the files are coming from the web [7] Esby (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- May really be questionable for "own work", as the images differ in resulution and in cameras used. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader admitted not to be the author. No other source, no way to infer a compatible copyright status. Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably copyrighted, non-free model. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a derivative of a presumably copyrighted, non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
1954 photo, license does not apply. Was undeleted without giving a reason. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cant agree more, license does not apply. Maybe it is public domain for another reason but not for {{PD-RU-exempt}}. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep The Russian law indicates clearly that official documents are not protected by copyright. This picture has been taken by the KGB upon the release of Anna Timiriova from detention and is part of her police file which is an official document of the government. I cannot understand what is not clear. Why is a police document not an official document? Simply stating that it is not, is hardly sufficient for the deletion request. What should be done, at least, is to state what the objectors consider to be and administrative or official document in Russia and why they consider the document should not be included in this category.
The file was deleted, I have requested the undeletion, it was on the undeletion proposals since April 2010, and nobody, not even Pieter Kuiper objected to the undeletion for 2 1/2 months. However, in less than a day after the file was undeleted, Pieter Kuiper requests its deletion again. He does not indicate why he wants the file to be deleted, only saying that the license does not apply without any explanation. This is a personal feud between Pieter and me and should stop.
In any case the rules of Wikicommons seem extremely strange. If a file is deleted, reloadin it is prohibited. Why, then is it allowed to redelete a file immediately after it was undeleted? Especially if the user requesting the deletion chose not to participate in the undeletion discussion. This opens the door to unending feuds. Afil (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- These kind of exemptions are for texts by the government with legislative, administrative or judicial character, which anybody must be able to cite in public discussion. The exemption does not cover things like police photos. I had not seen the file before, I could not see its history I could not have an opinion about it. But I wonder why it was undeleted - no reason was given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I undeleted it under Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-07, where Nard claimed that it would only fall under neighboring rights. Why are you so sure that RU-exempt doesn't apply? "state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents" doesn't seem to be that clear, or am I missing something obvious?--DieBuche (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nard only wondered if there was some kind of "simple photographs" provision (Lichtbilder) in Russian copyright law; I have seen nothing to indicate that. The present license does not refer to it. It refers to law texts and judgements by courts. Unpublished draft versions are not exmpted, according to the small print in {{PD-RU-exempt}}, only official published versions. This is just an internal KGB photo, unpublished, not an official government document. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Going by the literal, English translation... this could very well be considered a "material of administrative nature". If draft versions aren't covered, fine, but if this was the version which made it into the final official document (published or not) then it is not a draft, and the exception at the bottom would not apply. It says nothing about publishing; it seems to indicate that only the final, on-record version of a document is the one exempted. I'm not sure I've seen this tag used for this type of material before, but reading it closely, it may apply (and was the reason for undeletion, which was certainly given). It does say "material"; more generic than textual documents only. There may be subtleties of the original Russian which are lost in translation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Be careful what we call administrative character here. Internal documentation isnt of administrative character nor has it any effect/administrative function. The text of the law is exempted from copyright because of a public interest, decisions of e.g. a local council are exempted because of public interest and the decisions administrative character - this photo is missing this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since she was imprisoned in the Gulag just for opposing the system at that time, aren't her police files of public interest to Human rights group or organizations like Victims of Communism as well as family & friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieBuche (talk • contribs)
- Curiosity, you mean. It is a public interest that intellectual property is protected by copyright. But it is also a public interest that laws, council protocols, court decisions, etcetera can be discussed without worrying about copyright. That is why such materials are exempt. It is the kind of stuff that gets published in the official Gazette. Not just anything that is in police archives. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since she was imprisoned in the Gulag just for opposing the system at that time, aren't her police files of public interest to Human rights group or organizations like Victims of Communism as well as family & friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieBuche (talk • contribs)
- Be careful what we call administrative character here. Internal documentation isnt of administrative character nor has it any effect/administrative function. The text of the law is exempted from copyright because of a public interest, decisions of e.g. a local council are exempted because of public interest and the decisions administrative character - this photo is missing this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Going by the literal, English translation... this could very well be considered a "material of administrative nature". If draft versions aren't covered, fine, but if this was the version which made it into the final official document (published or not) then it is not a draft, and the exception at the bottom would not apply. It says nothing about publishing; it seems to indicate that only the final, on-record version of a document is the one exempted. I'm not sure I've seen this tag used for this type of material before, but reading it closely, it may apply (and was the reason for undeletion, which was certainly given). It does say "material"; more generic than textual documents only. There may be subtleties of the original Russian which are lost in translation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nard only wondered if there was some kind of "simple photographs" provision (Lichtbilder) in Russian copyright law; I have seen nothing to indicate that. The present license does not refer to it. It refers to law texts and judgements by courts. Unpublished draft versions are not exmpted, according to the small print in {{PD-RU-exempt}}, only official published versions. This is just an internal KGB photo, unpublished, not an official government document. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I undeleted it under Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-07, where Nard claimed that it would only fall under neighboring rights. Why are you so sure that RU-exempt doesn't apply? "state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents" doesn't seem to be that clear, or am I missing something obvious?--DieBuche (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let us first get the facts straight.
- At her release from the Gulag, Anna Timiriova's photograph is taken by a KGB agent and included in her file. What is the copyright status of this picture? There are two interpretations of the law:
- 1. The picture (and actually the entire file) are copyright exempt being administrative or official documents
- 2. The picture is not copyright exempt. In this case, according to the Russian Civil Code, the copyright owner would be the KGB agent who took the picture and not the organization for which he was working.
- Tertium non datur!
- If you do not accept the first alternative, it means that you accept the second one which is totally absurd. Whose public interest is it to prevent the free use of the contents of a police file? Especially if we are talking about the files of victims of repressive regimes and organizations such as the KGB, the STASI etc. and others? Afil (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding (1): Not everything created or owned by any part of the government is exempted, thats not what the law says but thats what I think you wrongly assume with your first point. Also official bodies hold copyrights and most works by them are not exempted, only a very small number of works is not protected. Regarding (2) Its not necessary hold by the photographer, maybe it is still hold by the state (see 1) and maybe the copyright was transfered to some strange private persons in the confusions of Распад. Your special point is indeed sad, but thats the way it is. --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Out of curiosity, what were the copyright owner rules in the Soviet era? Hard to imagine anyone other than the state holding copyright then. If the file was published prior to the Soviet Union breaking up, then it may be considered simultaneously published in all successor regimes (which creates another really fun layer of complication), and current Russian Civil Code rules may not necessarily apply (outside Russia anyways). If it was only published later, in Russia, then Russia would be the sole country of origin and those rules probably would apply. Interpretation #2 above is not necessarily absurd; the government would presumably have an implied wide license for their needs, and copyright would expire normally based on that person's death (or 70 years after publication, for anonymous works usually, which this may be). This is the case in many countries (Germany I think, for example, where the employee technically owns the copyright but the company has a pretty wide exclusive license to get most of the same effect as actually owning the economic rights). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- See w:Copyright law of the Soviet Union. Creators of creative works had copyright, but a lot of things weren't copyright infringement (even translations!) and there were mandatory royalty rates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- But there was some retroactive legislation, see {{PD-Soviet}} and COM:L#Russia and former Soviet Union. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem of the image is related to the more general issue of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In most issues discussed, not only for this image, but also otherwise in Wikicommons, the only criterion applied is the letter of the law. In principle this is wrong. In the interpretation of any law, both criteria have to be takem into account.
- The spirit of the law, loosely defined as the intention of the legislator, is of course more difficult to assess.
- However in the case of copyright law, regardless of the country, all laws state clearly that the scope of the law is to protect intellectual property. This is usually defined as the result of creativity and originality. In litigations regarding copyright where this issue was relevant the courts in all countries have tried to define what elements had a creative and original character and were thus protected versus the ones lacking originality which were not protected. This applies to all types of productions covered by the copyright law: writings, drawings, photographs, music etc.
- In the case of photographs taken by the police in any country, the photographs have to follow certain rules. In the case of the Soviet Union, such rules indicated the size of the picture, the obligativity to take one frontal picture (generally the requirement was to show both ears), one lateral picture facing left, on a white background, etc. The result of these regulations were that the pictures of a certain detainee would be practically identical regardless of the agent who was taking the photographies. This practically excludes creativity and originality in these pictures, which therefore are not covered by the copyright law. This is a consequence of the general scope of the law as indicated in the introduction of the law and clearly states the intention of the legislator and the spirit of the law.
- Civil legislation is generally concerned with the rights of citizens and tries to create a balance between conflicting rights. In the case discussed by Martin H. the issue is the right of the photographer to the copyright of his work (or an agency which holds the copyright) versus the right of the victim of abuses of representatives of authoritarian regimes (in the case of Germany be it the SS or the Stasi, in Russia the CEKA or KGB etc.) to have their sufferings presented to the general public. I disagree with Martin H. who indicates that, sadly, this is the way it is. Sadly this is a very strict interpretation of the letter of the law. According to me, the spirit of German law (actually also of the present Russian law) does not intend to help cover the abuses and, on the contrary, helps those abuses to be brought to the attention of the general public. That is what the entire German judicial system proves and what court cases prove: the law is, in spirit, definitely on the side of the victims. Afil (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In the absence of a clearer wording of the applicable law, or any case law to the contrary being cited, it seems acceptable to treat a police photo in a police file as literally "material of an administrative nature" and therefore in the public domain, as per Carl Lindberg. There is at any rate no consensus to delete this file. Sandstein (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Poca calidad y obsoleta, no es descriptiva Clementev (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- ¿Hay algo mejor con las mismas personas? - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- without speaking spanish: no reason for deletion given - image from the times of the bird flu in mexico ?? Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does not appear to have any reason for deletion; I am going to mark this kept soon unless one appears. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
confundi el usuario desde el que debia publicar la imagen. luego la volveria a subir desde el usuario correcto Vuvuzela (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment deletion request of the uploader - as far as I understand , he wants to upload a better version ?! Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to delete the image to do that. Can a Spanish speaker please confirm the translation? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, see no other reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 21:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fanattiq
[edit]Most of the files uploaded by Fanattiq (talk, contributions, log) were taken using a Nikon Coolpix S4 camera between at least November 2005 and August 2009. There is a large enough number of those that I am convinced they were actually taken by the uploader. However, there are also a large number of copyright problems among the uploads. The uploads also include photos taken using at least five other cameras, interleaved with the Coolpix photos. Given the other copyright problems and the improbable pattern of switching between these cameras and the Coolpix, I am not convinced that these are the uploader's own work, as claimed.
- File:Isla Cristina murgateatro.jpg was taken with a Nytech ND-6360 on 27 February 2004
- File:LaRedondela instalaciones.jpg and File:AytoLaRedondela.jpg were taken with an Olympus C-5000Z on 18 July 2007
- File:Ayuntamiento La Redondela.jpg was taken with an Apple Iphone on 27 November 2007
- File:LaRedondela SalaMudejar.jpg and File:IslaCristina Palmeras nuevopavimento.jpg were taken with a Samsung S8300 on 12-15 November 2009
- File:LaRedondela Sala Mudejar.jpg was taken with something only identifying itself as Camera 3MP-9CA some time before 24 November 2009
- File:BanderaIslaCristinaEurocopa2008.jpg has no EXIF data other than a Picasa ID
- File:LaRedondela iglesia12apostoles.jpg, File:Isla Cristina-Salinas.jpg and File:Isla Cristina bandera en el puerto.jpg have no EXIF data
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I seldon used my mobile phone to take same pictures, after that, I also have a Nikon D5000, and a Canon A480, other ones are the result of a computer editing, and the Carnival photograph taken with the Nytech, was a borough during the party because I did not have there mine. The several photos from La Redondela, were the result of several times traveling there with my brother, and used his camera and other one from the townhall where he works.
In the case of Eurocopa, is the only part I have where no people is indentified, and the rest of the picture is not possible to upload. If you consider this photos from La Redondela or the others are not legal ones, proceed to delete them, next time I will take more (of course, not the one from the Eurocopa, but the rest ones from La Redondela will take with my usual model or one camera of my own), but I do not think I must use always my own equipment to take my own pictures. --Fanattiq (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of deleting, must I suposse I will not be able to upload photos from certain travels where I rent the equipment, for example for diving, or I used also the camera from my wife? --Fanattiq (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, reasonable explanation from trusted user. m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)