Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Appears to be a copyright violation. Lacks adequate source information. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not sure a cv of where, but lacks source (could've been a quick {{subst:nsd}}, y'know). fetchcomms☛ 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded as promotional content, unused, low res, removal of watermarking would be impossible. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete Its a clear copyright violation. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Data incorrect Arunvet (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of File:Commander .JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Commander .JPG -- Common Good (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I screwed up the filename and description. What year is it again? :-) Karora 09:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, misnamed orphan duplicate of File:Wayne Mills-LitQuiz-WgtnRegion-2010.jpg. Infrogmation (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BTR-50, technical museum, Togliatti-2.JPG ShinePhantom (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
erreur de pays Parent Géry (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC) pas Gabon, mais Pérou
Kept. Vous pouvez utiliser {{rename|nouveau nom|raison}} pour demander qu'un administrateur renomme le fichier. –Tryphon☂ 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
erreur de pays Parent Géry (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC) pas Gabon, mais Pérou
Kept. Vous pouvez utiliser {{rename|nouveau nom|raison}} pour demander qu'un administrateur renomme le fichier. –Tryphon☂ 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong country Parent Géry (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Rhodocrosite (Pérou) 3 .jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong country Parent Géry (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Rhodocrosite (Pérou) 6 .jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong country Parent Géry (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Rhodocrosite (Pérou) 1 .jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong country Parent Géry (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Rhodocrosite (Pérou) 3 .jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. Exactly the same photo uploaded by two different users with meta data of HP scanner. Further is it the only upload of each user. Image also on http://dinodimaculangan.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/scan0011.jpg In all cases not a rectangular format. Wouter (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment please use the tagging as duplicate next time. the format is no argument for deletion or keeping it Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Thegreatgiltamayodimaculanganbestburialallovertheearth.jpg
artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons Titaniaveda (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons
artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons Titaniaveda (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons
artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons Titaniaveda (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons
artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons Titaniaveda (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons
I am shocked to see that this photo looks to be an exact duplicate of British Museum's version at http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/l/lindow_man.aspx. Ordinarily, I would have immediately tagged this with {{copyvio}}, but the uploader has submitted some photos that are evidently his own, so I am bringing it here for further discussion. Jappalang (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Facts
- File:Lindowman.jpg was uploaded to Wikipedia on 18 Feb 2008; Jack1956 claims it was taken on that date.
- There is no EXIF attached, the photo is of 531×569 in size and 8-bit colour depth; it does not have any borders.
- http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/l/lindow_man.aspx has been up at least as early as 2 November 2007; it is likely even earlier, being the cover for British Archaeology May/June 2005.
- The British museum photo is 600x600 in size, including the black border; note that even without the border, this photo is larger than Lindowman.jpg and shows more of the subject's surroundings.
- Observations
- Lindowman.jpg has the same orientation, positioning and lighting as the British Museum photo.
- With the Blending Mode set to Difference, overlaying Lindowman.jpg on the British Museum photo in a graphical editor shows a perfect fit.
Based on the above, I believe that Lindowman.jpg is a downsampled copy of the British Museum photo. Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- ...and according to my read of the licensing, is property of Jack1956. Jack is a member of the British Museum Society as quoted on his English Wiki userpage and according to the explicit licensing terms at the official Museum site, it identifies those members as owners. Quoting from the licensing page:
:"'We' 'our' 'us' means The Trustees of the British Museum or as the context requires the British Museum Company Limited, the British Museum Friends or the British Museum Great Court Limited;"
- "This Website contains intellectual property copyright Materials belonging to the Trustees of the British Museum, the British Museum Company Limited, the British Museum Friends, the British Museum Great Court Limited and to third party Authors (from whom the Trustees have made all reasonable efforts to obtain full consent to publish their works and materials on the British Museum website)."
- "2.1 You are permitted to use Materials for Approved Purposes only."
- "“Approved Purposes” means private or non-commercial uses for education, academic study, scholarship or research by individuals or charities, societies, institutions or trusts existing exclusively for public benefit (but no other purposes);"
- I can't speak for Jack but given his stellar work and reputation, I don't believe that he would intentionally violate any copyrights. I'd be willing to bet it is from his read of those terms.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)- The curious bit, as stated above, is that Jack said Lindowman.jpg is taken on 18 Feb 2008; British Museum's photo is available since 2005. The earlier existence of British Museum's photo would invalidate Lindoman.jpg's claim of 2008 creation.
- I understand how strange this seems, especially since Jack1956 has uploaded File:Bm-ginger.jpg, which is different from BM's photo (orientation- and lighting-wise), has an EXIF, and is much larger than the BM's copy. But in this case, Lindowman.jpg shows too close a match to the BM photo. Jappalang (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, Sorry to have caused this debate. My image of Lindow Man is my photograph of the British Museum's own much larger photograph of Lindow Man, on display at a private viewing for Members in 2008. Because he is in a glass case under boxed lighting it is impossible to get a good clear image. I was told by a curator at the time that as a member of the British Museum Society it was OK for me to upload it to Wiki as it was for non-commercial educational purposes. My photograph of the mummy 'Ginger' is entirely my own work, as are all the other photographs taken by me at the BM. Jack1956 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not to worry; deletion requests are here to clarify the copyrights of the photos. Your good work with 'Ginger' and some other subjects is what stopped me from proceeding with a {{copyvio}} tag then. I would advise not taking any more photos of photos; more photos in the vein of 'Ginger' would be appreciated. However, now that Lindowman.jpg is clarified to be licensed for non-commercial purposes, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. It is not in line with what either Wikipedia or Commons deem as "free". Jappalang (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The image's licence on the British Museum's website here [1] would suggest that it can be used on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.77.26 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11. Jul. 2010 (UTC)
- May be, but it cannot stay on Commons at it is clearly (a derivative of) an image free only for non-commercial uses. --Túrelio (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have explained at User talk:Jack1956#Wikipedia's policy on what is a "free" image on why an image restricted to non-commercial purposes is considered "non-free" on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This image will be deleted from Commons soon. Users active on Wikipedias that allow fair-use or use of no-commercial-use images should copy the image and its description to their project today. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment It's been proven that this image is copyrighted and of course needs to be deleted, but as it's used on several articles across different language Wikipedias, could the deletion be postponed by an hour until I've had the opportunity to go through and replace the photo in each article? I'll leave a note here once I'm done. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, ready for this image to be deleted. At the moment, it appears that there's heavy usage on en.wiki, but this is just a hangover from use of the image in a template and it might take a while for commons to catch up. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as it is a derivative of no-commercial use restricted copyrighted original. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. Exactly the same photo uploaded by two different users with meta data of HP scanner. Further is it the only upload of each user. Image also on http://dinodimaculangan.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/scan0011.jpg In all cases not a rectangular format. Wouter (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion not own work, it is a scan. See http://dinodimaculangan.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/scan0013.jpg Wouter (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
On request occupant: he means that the photo was taken from private land - I 'm not hundred per cent sure that he is right but I give him the benefit of the doubt. Gouwenaar (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment That does not really matter for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point is, that I was on private land at the time I photographed the building, so the owner of the house claimed. In that case it is forbidden. So, for my part, it is better to delete this file. Gouwenaar (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that that is true. Anyone can drive up to the door; why would one not be allowed to make a photo? But of course, if Gouwenaar faces problems over this, it should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, that is the point. I've looked in Google Earth; there is a good view of the approach to the Tonckensborg (Hoofdweg 19 in Wesstervelde). I don't see a prohibitory sign or a sign that the way on the terrain is private properrty. But the occupant was crystal clear: he said the photo was made after passing a board with no access. It is quite possible, I don't know it, that is the reason I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. What's more there are good alternatives File:Tonckensborg1.jpg, File:Tonckensborg3.jpg and File:Tonckensborg4.jpg are made from the public road. Gouwenaar (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that that is true. Anyone can drive up to the door; why would one not be allowed to make a photo? But of course, if Gouwenaar faces problems over this, it should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The point is, that I was on private land at the time I photographed the building, so the owner of the house claimed. In that case it is forbidden. So, for my part, it is better to delete this file. Gouwenaar (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm fine with deleting this per author's request.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Better version available : File:Nl-luchtmacht-soldaat_der_1e_klasse.svg Huhbakker (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Better version available : File:Nl-luchtmacht-soldaat_der_3e_klasse.svg Huhbakker (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused & Better version available : File:Blok_DAC.png Huhbakker (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation from http://hanjuang.co.id/produkCF1.html Sentausa (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Not own work, a scan. see http://dinodimaculangan.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/august-1b2.jpg Wouter (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but this may not be in public domain. We need to check. GaAs11671 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not used to licenses regarding coins. Since this coin is post-1923, there is indeed some checking to do that I've just been made aware of. This coin does not seem to be included in the description of copyrighted materials given by the following links, thus it'd be fine. Regardless of the outcome, it would be nice to include a bit more explanations on the topic. In order to know whether I could upload the coins, I found lots of similar coins in year and country, so I supposed that was fine and now I'm wondering whether I wasted my time. That is rather unpleasant. Philippe Giabbanelli (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 |
This image depicts a unit of currency issued by the United States of America. If this is an image of paper currency or a coin not listed here, it is solely a work of the United States Government, is ineligible for US copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States. Fraudulent use of this image is punishable under applicable counterfeiting laws. As listed by the the U.S. Currency Education Program at money illustrations, the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (31 CFR 411), permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided: Also: COM:ART #Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet |
Keep US money is almost invariably PD-USGov; the engraving of Sacagawea and certain of the 50 states quarters (and probably the territories and the national parks) are the exceptions listed on the US Mint site, and the only one's I'm aware of. Prior to 1989, they would have had to put a copyright notice on the coin. There's no way this is under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)- Keep, both as a work of the US government and as published pre-1977 without a copyright notice. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
copyraited from www.terrikon.dn.ua/posts/49168 Amarhgil (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong name; should be West Walls. My bad. Charlesdrakew (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
File falls outside Project Scope. No educational purpose. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
bad name; newer verison uploaded under different Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
повтаря се Bayar (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted software ZanderZ (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The image is copyrighted by youtube. Commons cannot keep this photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Borderline case, but I'd still say Keep, as PD-ineligible. There's nothing copyrightable on this screen shot. Simple user interface elements are not copyrightable (the default controls of a video player software weren't invented by youtube). --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kept. per PaterMcFly Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The placing of the navigation buttons including their visual style is owned by YouTube (or Google) Dekoning93 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per PaterMcFly --Nummer 12 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This needs a speedy close by another Admin. There is nothing about this that can have a copyright -- it looks very similar to Windows Media Player, or, for that matter, like the front of any DVD player. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept per above and previous deletion request discussion. Simple text with some geometric symbols; no violation of copyright. Infrogmation (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unusable somethig JAn Dudík (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on the user page of the uploader, so it's in scope. License is also ok, "Only for user page use" statement is a description of the image purpose and not a license requirement. Trycatch (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Unidentified and probably unidentifiable person. Or do we have a category "Asian men in suits? Sole contribution of uploader, uncategoried for over a year. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Given the uploader's history and the low resolution image of this photo, I'm not inclined to accept that this is own work. Its safer to delete here since its also unused. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
artist wants all copyrights and not to have this artwork for free use in wiki commons Titaniaveda (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
File deleted July 11, 2010 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roy_Petley_The_last_of_the_sun.jpg Titaniaveda (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
File deleted July 11, 2010 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France for modern art and the sculpture is the predominant object in the photo. De Minimis cannot apply here. Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: The flickr account appears to be the sculptor's account, or at least associated with her. Her publishing, or at the least her approbation of the publishing, of the photos under a free licence makes their republication on Commons legitimate, even when they include some of her works. Besides, the Commons uploader seems to be associated with the agency in charge of the artist's official website. Her name is visible in one of the videos made for the agency about the artist's work and she might actually be the authorized photographer herself. Both the flickr account and the Commons account look legitimate and there does not seem to be any reason to question it. If it is considered necessary, we might ask additional confirmation by OTRS of the relations between those accounts and the actual persons under whose names they are registered. But there does not seem to be reason for deletion. (Subsidiarily, anyways, this particular photo shows the ceremony, with the artist voluntarily posing with other people for the photo, and where her work represents 5 % of this photo, so it might be de minimis.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Asclepias Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Same with File:VectorEditorBasic-zh.png Waihorace (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User Gensui3 claims to be the author (see licence text: "I, the copyright holder ..."). But, as I think, Gensui3 is likely not the copyright holder --A.Ceta (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. As above, this appears to be a copyright image unlikely to have been created by the uploader. --DAJF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE -- personal picture not in use. Trycatch (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal picture, not in use (the band is not notable). Trycatch (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The image contains an unauthorized derivative work (the portrait in the centre) which is not de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not believe that as a derivative work that it would be a breach of copyright in the existing and displayed form, of which there is no provenance. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: But does the fact that we do not know the provenance of the photograph of the gentleman in the centre of the image mean that it is not a copyrighted work? I don't think so. The onus is on the uploader to establish that there are no unauthorized derivative works in his or her photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Not in use & content of the file/page cannot be determined Huhbakker (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of the animatronics pictured. Powers (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted Peter Pan artwork Powers (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Artwork by Oto Antonini, who died in 1959. Antonini was born in Zagreb (Croatia), the work was published in Belgrade (serbia) according to the description. The successor states of the Republic of Yugoslavia all seem to have a copyright lengths of 70 years pma, so the work isn't old enough to be PD-old. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, possible copyvio, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Copyvio?? I see no reason to doubt the own work claim. Resolution of the first uploaded version is high enough. Trycatch (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, not low resolution, and the scope of Commons is far broader than that of the English Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Useful addition to Category:Trucks with crane Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No indication at source site that this is a work of the federal government, or public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Original source not given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Since this nomination, the image source was added. However, I couldn't find anything at the source that indicated this is public domain. It is not a U.S. federal government image.Chowbok (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Questionable source/copyright claim (is uploader the artist who created all the images within this one?), questionable scope. --Infrogmation (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a U.S. Federal Government photo; not public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No source given; no evidence this is public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Work of State of Arkansas, not United States; not public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, as copyright on Arkansas works this old has expired. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 1907 photo, per Nyttend Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No indication at linked copyright site that images are public domain. Chowbok (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Work of Colorado, not United States; not public domain. Chowbok (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No backup for public domain assertion. Chowbok (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Subject of the photos believes that the uploader's "evident intent was to blacken my name by posting undignified photos." (OTRS #2010070510039203) Additionally, images are not used on the English Wikipedia, or the other three languages where Mr. Hewitt is profiled. Nick Moreau (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not because of the subject's paranoia, but because it's a bad photograph that has no plausible use. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above. This image is not good enough quality or valuable enough to justify fighting about nonconsent in a possible privacy grey area. 99of9 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Subject of the photos believes that the uploader's "evident intent was to blacken my name by posting undignified photos." (OTRS #2010070510039203) Additionally, images are not used on the English Wikipedia, or the other three languages where Mr. Hewitt is profiled. Nick Moreau (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - this is essentially the same shot as the one directly below except the subject is not in focus, so it is unlikely to be used. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above, out of focus and doesn't add anything more value then File:Carl_Hewitt_(40th_Anniversary_of_the_Mother_of_all_Demos,_3).jpg does. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the author. See http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/oregon/oregon-resorts for the same image at higher resolution. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I tagged this with {{Copyvio}} to speed up deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (© 2010 Destination360 All Rights Reserved) Oxam Hartog 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Oxam Hartog: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dnmsr b1.jpg: No evidence uploader is the author. See http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/oregon/oregon-resorts for the same image at higher resolution.
The stylized "M" is more than "simple geometric shapes and text" and doesn't qualify under {{PD-textlogo}}. (→Zachary) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment this file was previously nominated with the decision of "keep" on 18 October 2007. The previous DR can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikibooks-Gmail.png. (→Zachary) 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom, I think the "M" in the Gmail logo is more of a creative work, with the lines behind it that make the M resemble an envelope. Wouldn't qualify under {{PD-textlogo}}. (→Zachary) 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, an M with three lines on it is still ineligible. –Tryphon☂ 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep clearly not enough original, see Threshold of originality#United States. Trycatch (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not pass the threshold of originality, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I need to re upload this image without the copywright meta data. It's my image Peatoire (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Yakatori_bar_at_Shimbashi.jpg&wpForReUpload=1 use this link to re-upload. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, reupload a better version over this one. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no OTRS for this file, which if released into PD by Norwegian security service, there should be a ticket for it. russavia (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
[[5]] - picture made public (not to be confused with public domain) here by Norwegian Secret Police.. Martinor (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Photo of the present device Dark Andrew 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Utility object, low resolution. We have lots of images of cell phones. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Source and author=Motorola? Picture is surely taken from some website. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Herby. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at Commons:PD#Japan it's 50 years after publication if anonymous, or death of author. Because there is no information given, and the only information is that it was a tunnel to be built during world war II, so it was most likely published during or after the war. If it was published in somebody's name then it probably is still copyrighted, and it could be if the plan wasn't published until 1960. Essentially the topic matter and the lack of source information makes the image quite possibly not be in the public domain. NativeForeigner (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep-it's original research on both your part and mine, but the artwork and typestyle suggest it is World War II era, not later. We can't hang a deletion on "most likely" and "quite possibly" The original uploader needs notified and contacted to see if they can source this. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I emailed the uploader requesting any information they might have on the source but haven't heard anything yet and I don't think we're likely to, considering they have not been active since February 2009. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with the opinion of Kintetsubuffalo about time of print the drawing. In my opinion type of graphic performance indicates about 1950. years or earlier. PawełMM (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid Kintetsubuffalo has our policy backwards. We must delete based on "most likely" and "quite possibly" -- in order to keep an image, the uploader or others must show that it is licensed or PD. We have no such information here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with the opinion of Kintetsubuffalo about time of print the drawing. In my opinion type of graphic performance indicates about 1950. years or earlier. PawełMM (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I emailed the uploader requesting any information they might have on the source but haven't heard anything yet and I don't think we're likely to, considering they have not been active since February 2009. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source that confirms the public domain status. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
keine Panoramafreiheit in Finnland Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Siehst du etwas schützenswertes? Ich irgendwie nicht so wirklich. --Wikijunkie (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ich auch nicht. "Panoramafreiheit" hat ja mit "Panoramabild" nichts zu tun. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The pool and the bronze hands on poles in the center constitute the Urho Kekkonen Monument (fi:Urho Kekkosen muistomerkki) by the (still living) sculptor Pekka Jylhä. The pool by itself might perhaps be considered an architectural work (for which Finnish law does have FoP), or perhaps even ineligible for copyright; but the hands (and presumably by extension the entire installation) are clearly sculptural works, and IMO seem likely to exceed the threshold of originality (though I can't offhand cite any relevant precedents). Given the small fraction of the image occupied by the sculpture, one might perhaps wish to argue that it is de minimis (which Finnish copyright law also has a specific exemption for); however, the fact that the title of the image specifically refers to the monument, and the the image is currently only used to illustrate the fi.wp article about it, may make such an assertion somewhat less convincing. Thus, and sadly, I'll have to lean in the favor of deleting this image from Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep I'm inclined to say that the image shows the setting for the sculpture, but the sculpture is so small as to be de minimus as long as it is used in this form and not cropped. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM. MKFI (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality self-created artwork without obvious educational use Werty (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, history of toilets; I don't know that we have much of any better quality on the subject. Infrogmation (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all toilet drawings by Toilet. Self-created artwork of no educational value. If these images should demonstrate something, it is not clear what they demonstrate. They obviously do not demonstrate toilet behavior in former times, but only demonstrate the fantasy of the creator how toilet behavior could have been in former times. This is beyond original research, it is misleading. BTW: no man, only women are depicted in various positions. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete An real historic illustration of that would be appreciated and perfectly fine to upload, but not this. Can we please start a mass deletion request on all the other drawings by this user? This is not usefull and not in scope of the project. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment created MDR. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/Toilet Drawings of User:Toilet: self-drawn illustrations of woman on toilets pretending to be of historic value, not in the scope of the project
No source information and no evidence this was published more than 60 years ago; no evidence this is out of copyright in the US —innotata 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Subject of the photos believes that the uploader's "evident intent was to blacken my name by posting undignified photos." (OTRS #2010070510039203) Additionally, images are not used on the English Wikipedia, or the other three languages where Mr. Hewitt is profiled. Nick Moreau (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - unlike the two nominated above, this appears to be a reasonably good image of the subject. Jonathunder (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - plausible use, paranoia of the subject that people are out to besmirch him isn't reason to delete images that could be used and are freely licensed. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly this image was uploaded without consent, so to be even allowed keep it, according to COM:PEOPLE we need to be convinced that this was "public" enough to have the expectation of random photography. Even if we're allowed to, I'm not convinced that we should. Why can't we just ask him to send us a better photo? --99of9 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like someone's house, it looks like a conference at a hotel conference center, at such an event everyone has cameras and is taking pictures usually, there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. At least thats my take on the expectation of privacy. I don't think we should be setting precedent of people getting pictures deleted because they don't like them. Theres MAANY celebrity pictures that are not exactly the best, some quite poor, that we use because we have nothing better. They're the same category for the most part. If we just cave every time one of them e-mails us and says delete it because I don't like it and isn't offering us a better replacement, then we shouldn't delete it. A crop of this image would be perfectly acceptable on en:Carl Hewitt where we don't have an image yet. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, taken at a public venue of a notable individual, no piracy issues. Kameraad Pjotr 20:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Author of photo don't understand what is CC. On source page no jurisdiction and version of license therefore no legal license document therefore 3.0 inappropriate therefore no permission and therefore copyvio. )) See also talk in Russian here. -- TarzanASG +1 09:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to determine whether this deletion request is valid, I've started an English-language discussion about whether works under a "Creative Commons" license with no version information and no way to determine the precise license text can be uploaded to Commons. --Tetromino (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I had closed this as delete as there are no keep votes, but M5 requested I reopen it because the CC permission is valid. I'll do that, but any comments on why to keep should be brought soon. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The claim that "author of photo don't understand what is CC" is misleading, the author clearly published his works cc-by-sa, moreover he has provided explanation of the basic terms of license (see author page autotranslated). The only problem is the lack of version number. This problem has been discussed on Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 26#Creative Commons license without any version information and prevailing opinion was that CC licenses without version number are acceptable. Only nominator was against the acceptance, but even he did finally admit that the arguments of his opponent are surely logical, but he still have some reservations (unfortunately, that line in the discussion timestamped 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) was not translated from Russian). --M5 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Creative Commons licenses without version number are discouraged, but perfectly valid. Kameraad Pjotr 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Einstein2021
[edit]File:Atlas of creation cover.jpgFile:Adnan oktar 01.jpg- File:Potrai Adnan 01.jpg
- File:Adnan Oktar 9517.jpg
File:Adnan oktar 03.jpg- File:Adnan oktar 11062009-1A1225.jpg
- File:Religious leaders adnan oktar.JPG
- File:Adnan oktar looking atlas.jpg]
- File:Adnan Oktar Agustos2007 01.jpg]
Probably copyvio per website which don't allow modification --Otourly (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I think that with "don't allow modification", Otourly gives a very polite and optimistic interpretation of "© 2010 by Harun Yahya International. All rights reserved. These materials may be freely copied, printed and distributed (...)". Mine is that "All rights reserved" and "freely copied, printed and distributed (...)" cannot coexist, and that the disclaimer indicates that the person who wrote it is not competent to release material under a licence. We must then be conservative, protect the uploader from himself, and assume the material is "All rights reserved". In addition, the problem of "no modification" makes me think that this material is speedy fodder. Rama (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- All rights reserved was at one point required to protect copyright, even freely licensed copyright. It's meaningless legal boilerplate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Support undelete. I have contact with a partner of Oktar's organization. Permission is granted to modify the images clearly. As source have to be always given "Harun Yahya". If you still want an explicit permission from the author, I can arrange this. Within days, this should be implemented. Is this step necessary?-Einstein2021 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)- Comment Permission has been received for File:Adnan oktar 03.jpg. ZooFari 14:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Rama. See also the reaction my comment, years ago on Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos when I discussed the publicity-photos of Marat Safin. The publicty photo was not allowed, because "we don't accept noncommercial licensed media, and we don't accept "no derivative work" licenses". Thus, the Harun Yahya-publicity photos could not be allowed as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Permission received for File:Atlas of creation cover.jpg and File:Adnan oktar 01.jpg when emailed in for submission, they were later uploaded by the user themselves but with an incorrect licence. I have applied the original licence as given by email. Fæ (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted the images except the items we received permission for. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
French diploma
[edit]Important: FYI
[edit] Comment Since the 5th of July 2010 the Russian User:Alex Spade attacks systematically my files without explication (I suspect his being from the Russian town of Zelenograd in which I lived 25 years, his being an associated professor in the High school MIEE in which my parents worked many years or, perhaps, my being political refugee in France are his REAL purposes and not the license problems with my files). I demanded him his counsel WHAT and HOW to change, he did NOT answer. In the aim to deceive the community, he systematically deletes (3 times yet) this topic from his own discussion page. When I noticed him his actions as a sort of vandalism, he finally generated this discussion. Jirnov (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- False info in last sentence Alex Spade (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC). This discusssion have started on 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC). The so-called vandalism notice had placed on 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC). Alex Spade (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, very true info and one more lie from you. You take everybody for fool? Everybody can see in the history of the file of diploma that YOU started the war of (18:11, 5 July 2010 Alex Spade (talk | contribs) (690 bytes) (undo)) and in the history of you discussion page that I initiated the discussion topic about your vandalism on your page (15:40, 6 July 2010)Jirnov (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have commented only last sentence (that so-called vandalism notice was before discussion start). I haven't commented other sentences. Alex Spade (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, very true info and one more lie from you. You take everybody for fool? Everybody can see in the history of the file of diploma that YOU started the war of (18:11, 5 July 2010 Alex Spade (talk | contribs) (690 bytes) (undo)) and in the history of you discussion page that I initiated the discussion topic about your vandalism on your page (15:40, 6 July 2010)Jirnov (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Jirnov diplome ena1992.jpg and sub-variant File:Ena marianne.jpg
[edit]- There is no {{PD-FR-exempt}} lic.tag (like {{PD-RU-exempt}} for Russian official docs). There is {{PD-JORF}}, but these works were not publicated in Journal officiel de la République Française.
- Delete both: Reproductions of non-free works. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pure allegation KeepJirnov (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC) FYI : ENA is a government institution under the direct authority of the French Prime minister. Its non-free logo is completely different (see the French page of the school in Wikipedia). fr:Fichier:Logo Ecole nationale d'administration.jpg The picture from the diploma I used is the Marianne that is one of the symbols of French republic and as such in the public domain.Jirnov (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- *First of all, its common sense. So, it’s {{PD-trivial}}.
Done Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC) - *Historically, During the French Revolution of 1789, many allegorical personifications of 'Liberty' and 'Reason' appeared. These two figures finally merged into one: a female figure, shown either sitting or standing, and accompanied by various attributes, including the cockerel, the tricolor cockade, and the Phrygian cap. This woman typically symbolised Liberty, Reason, the Nation, the Homeland, the civic virtues of the Republic. (Compare the Statue of Liberty, created by a French artist, with a copy in both Paris and Saint-Étienne.) In September 1792, the National Convention decided by decree that the new seal of the state would represent a standing woman holding a spear with a Phrygian cap held aloft on top of it. So, it’s {{PD-old}} DoneJirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is where link to law that symbols of French republic are in the public domain? Alex Spade (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted Done. Do you can cite a French law which states that symbols of French republic are NOT in the public domain? Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted
- Is where link to law that symbols of French republic are in the public domain? Alex Spade (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD is obvious for diplomas in the entire world. Why give them to people if they can't show them to whom they like? 82.124.184.223 04:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Initial rights
[edit]The object :
- This French Diploma is an official document that proves the educational degree of his owner. As such it can and must be copied and/or be shown freely as many times as his owner wants and is needed without demanding any permission. There is no copyright restrictions for it's owner. So it's under the following licence
|
|
This file is in the public domain because this image is a copy of a diploma printed by the Imprimerie nationale, the french official printing office. It is accordingly a product issued by the government, granted to the owner of this diploma. This French Diploma is an official document that proves the educational degree of his owner. As such it can and must be copied and/or be shown freely as many times as his owner wants and is needed without demanding any permission. There is no copyright restrictions for it's owner.
|
_4_.jpg){kind=link}
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_4_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_4_.jpg){kind=link}
_4_.jpg){kind=link}
_3_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_6_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_1_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.britishmuseum.org/join_in/using_digital_images/using_digital_images.aspx?image=ps219078.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- The text in PD-because is only words without links to French copyright law. So it's nothing. Provide links to respective article(s) of French copyright law or other acting French law with such statement. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to prove because it's {{PD-trivial}}. Jirnov (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The text of diploma is {{PD-trivial}}. But there is en:Marianne profile on it also - it's not trivial. The freedom of this profile must be prooved with link to French law. And I suggest, thet your FR-Native will be very usefull for your in search of respective links. Alex Spade (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So, Done for the {{PD-trivial}} of the text. Also exact in identifing the image, but wrong in YOUR ALLEGATIONS: the picture from the diploma I used is a common variant Marianne that is one of the symbols of French republic and as such in the public domain.Jirnov (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Provide link to French law, that symbols of French republic are in the public domain. I only see {{PD-JORF}}. Alex Spade (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its nothing more to provide this article(L122-5) [6] is sufficient (see allinéa n°9) Jirnov (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article L122-5 (using Google translate) is anolog of conceprion of fair-use in US-law or Articles 1273-1275 in RU Civil Code. Such conceptions are deprecated on WikiCommons. They are not make works free in terms of defenition of FCW. Alex Spade (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair-use is good enough for this case (see the use of the files in Wikipedia) Jirnov (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- We are not in Ru-Wikipedia/En-Wikipedia - where FU is allowed. We are on Wikicommons - here FU is deprecated. Alex Spade (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- My dear, professor. This is not an exam at your institute, neither a police or court of justice interrogation. I have from the beginning a strong feeling that you know what and how to do, but you are keeping for you your precious knowledge and doing counter productive things for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects that frankly I don’t appreciate.Jirnov (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your filling is nothing. If I know what and how to do, I do - as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description. Alex Spade (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description: My Lord! On the 9th-10th July you made minor positive changes on 3 (three) of my files. But from your phrase, one lazy enough not to see the history of your contributions, could think that you spent ten years in making my files better. In France we call this « exagération marseillaise ». You never are ashamed of taking people for imbeciles ? Jirnov (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- You know, where I'm living and working, so I suppose, that you know perfectly, that I'm User:SpadeBot also (you have edited some your pages (from both your account) after "him" in addition). Alex Spade (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I ignored that other side of your identity (I am only a former spy and can’t spend all my spare time to make investigations on you, I prefer write articles for Wikipedia rather than to do KGB style actions against other contributors). Thanks for your positive actions even if I think they are really a sort of cover (alibi) after I pointed your general attitude as vandalism. Jirnov (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- You know, where I'm living and working, so I suppose, that you know perfectly, that I'm User:SpadeBot also (you have edited some your pages (from both your account) after "him" in addition). Alex Spade (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description: My Lord! On the 9th-10th July you made minor positive changes on 3 (three) of my files. But from your phrase, one lazy enough not to see the history of your contributions, could think that you spent ten years in making my files better. In France we call this « exagération marseillaise ». You never are ashamed of taking people for imbeciles ? Jirnov (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your filling is nothing. If I know what and how to do, I do - as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description. Alex Spade (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- My dear, professor. This is not an exam at your institute, neither a police or court of justice interrogation. I have from the beginning a strong feeling that you know what and how to do, but you are keeping for you your precious knowledge and doing counter productive things for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects that frankly I don’t appreciate.Jirnov (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- We are not in Ru-Wikipedia/En-Wikipedia - where FU is allowed. We are on Wikicommons - here FU is deprecated. Alex Spade (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair-use is good enough for this case (see the use of the files in Wikipedia) Jirnov (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article L122-5 (using Google translate) is anolog of conceprion of fair-use in US-law or Articles 1273-1275 in RU Civil Code. Such conceptions are deprecated on WikiCommons. They are not make works free in terms of defenition of FCW. Alex Spade (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its nothing more to provide this article(L122-5) [6] is sufficient (see allinéa n°9) Jirnov (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Provide link to French law, that symbols of French republic are in the public domain. I only see {{PD-JORF}}. Alex Spade (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So,
- The text of diploma is {{PD-trivial}}. But there is en:Marianne profile on it also - it's not trivial. The freedom of this profile must be prooved with link to French law. And I suggest, thet your FR-Native will be very usefull for your in search of respective links. Alex Spade (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to prove because it's {{PD-trivial}}. Jirnov (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- If my best Russian friend that I suspect working for Russian special services doubts about it, he must prove the contrary. Jirnov (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The freedom of work must be prooved, not vice versa. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The freedom of this work is automatically supposed (proved) because it’s {{PD-trivial}} and because there is a general presumption of MY innocence and good will. If YOU doubt about all this, it’s then up to YOU to prove the contrary and to prove that I’m GUILTY.Jirnov (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The original image of this object:
- I, the owner of this free of rights document made myself an original image of my own object and uploaded it to Wikimedia. So my image must be Keep under
|
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. |
- Your are owner of documnet, you are not copyrightholder of document. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Theses words are YOUR PURE allegations. Cite a French law that states it. Jirnov (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is common fact. For example -point 202 of US-law (Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- False, your statement is in the US law. My diploma is under the French law. I demaned you to cite the French law statement, which is still missing Jirnov (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is common fact. For example -point 202 of US-law (Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Theses words are YOUR PURE allegations. Cite a French law that states it. Jirnov (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- If my best Russian friend that I suspect working for Russian special services doubts about it, he must prove the contrary.
Jirnov (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Same problem, in addition there are two unfree logos of en:University of Toulouse on this work. Alex Spade (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Question The image description has the following license information in it. What's wrong about that? I would really assume a diploma is an official work. Also, a diploma is owned by whoever earned it, together with the right to use it for whatever he needs to. Whoever earned the diploma will definitelly make commercial use of it (i.e. he will use it to get a good job). --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Same problem, in addition there are two unfree logos of en:University of Toulouse on this work. Alex Spade (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
This file is in the public domain because this image is a copy of a diploma printed by the Imprimerie nationale, the french official printing office. It is accordingly a product issued by the government, granted to the owner of this diploma.
|
- I do not see anything there to make the work free. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are no evidences (links to official acts), that this lic.tag is correct. Also, the owner of something is not equal to copyrigholder. For example, somebody is owner of book - he can sold, burned out and etc. this book, but he is not copyrightholder of book (he can not reproduced, translate for commercial using and etc.) as usual. In addition, diploma can be free ({{PD-trivial}} as possible variant), but university logos are not free. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Derivative of a non-free work. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please state why the above PD tag (printed by the official printing office, issued by the government) is wrong. The owner of the diploma can certainly use and copy it for commercial purposes, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to upload it here, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. The freedom of work must be prooved, not vice versa. Please state why abobe PD tag is correct. In addition owner of the diploma can use and copy it for own, personal purposes. The presentation of diploma in the time of job search, posting of diploma on cabinet wall and etc. are not commercial using, these are own, personal purposes. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Using a diploma for job search is definitelly a commercial usage, since you intend to make money from it. You can even pay someone to use your diploma to find a job for you. If the diploma is i.e. for becoming a medic, you'll even stick it onto the wall of your waiting room for your clients to see.
- This is personal commercial using. You cann't change, modify it as work (as Definition of FCW demands), you can change, modify it as thing (piece of paper). Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The common sense says me that in the case of an official document, your logic if I understood it well, is not right. The document as a “thing” (piece of paper) could be modified only by the authorities of its issue, otherwise it becomes obsolete (deciduous) by forgery and /or counterfeiting. On the contrary, the “image” of your personal official document can be changed at will: if you like to publish it, you can hide from the image of your document your personal data in the aim of protecting your private life. Like the owner of this diploma of Toulouse III university had done. Jirnov (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please, cite the precise norm of the French law to prove your allegations Jirnov (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is personal commercial using. You cann't change, modify it as work (as Definition of FCW demands), you can change, modify it as thing (piece of paper). Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- We consider passports as free (see category:Passports by country, also Category:Passports of France). I wouldn't know how this differs from a passport in terms of copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Statement "We consider" without links to copyright law is nothing. French passport is enough differnet case. The unnofocial COA of France is {{PD-old}} (his author died in 1909), the text in passport is {{PD-trivial}}. In addition, there are not non-free logo of non-goverment establishments in French passport. Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- *French passport is enough differnet case. -- Another lie or rather your complete misunderstanding (you are a Russian biologist without knowledge of French language and, so obviously INCOMPETENT in this field of the French law and administration – you don’t have a Diploma of the National School of administration with the French Prime-minister as I) : the French passport is EXACTLY the SAME case. On the cover page of French passport File:French passport front cover.jpg you can see another SYMBOL of French republic: the armories (or the seal) of the republic, which is exactly the same thing as Marianne. And as such in the public domain. And even better: on the cover page of the French pasport of 1947 File:Henri Pinault 1947 Passport cover.jpg in the circle seal between “REPUBLIQUE FRANCAISE” and “PASSEPORT” you can directly see our MARIANNE. Done Jirnov (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- *non-free logo of non-goverment establishments -- Big fault, my friend. FYI : ENA is a government institution under the direct authority of the French Prime minister. Its non-free logo is completely different (see the French page of the school in Wikipedia). fr:Fichier:Logo Ecole nationale d'administration.jpg The picture from the diploma I used is the Marianne that is one of the symbols of French republic and as such in the public domain.Jirnov (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- In this part we are talking about File:French Master's degree.jpeg with two logos of en:University of Toulouse, not about your files.
- non-free logo of non-goverment establishments Still your fault: Paul Sabatier University (Université Paul Sabatier, UPS, also known as Toulouse III) is a French State university, in the Academy of Toulouse, placed under the double authority of French Ministry of national education and French Ministry of higher education and resurch.Jirnov (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. In addition, is where link to law that symbols of French republic are in the public domain? As I said, I didn't see {{PD-FR-exempt}}, I saw {{PD-JORF}} only. Give link to French copyright law or link to publication of disscused Marianne profile in respective Journal. Alex Spade (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted Done. Do you can cite a French law which states that symbols of French republic are NOT in the public domain? Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted
- In this part we are talking about File:French Master's degree.jpeg with two logos of en:University of Toulouse, not about your files.
- *French passport is enough differnet case. -- Another lie or rather your complete misunderstanding (you are a Russian biologist without knowledge of French language and, so obviously INCOMPETENT in this field of the French law and administration – you don’t have a Diploma of the National School of administration with the French Prime-minister as I) : the French passport is EXACTLY the SAME case. On the cover page of French passport File:French passport front cover.jpg you can see another SYMBOL of French republic: the armories (or the seal) of the republic, which is exactly the same thing as Marianne. And as such in the public domain. And even better: on the cover page of the French pasport of 1947 File:Henri Pinault 1947 Passport cover.jpg in the circle seal between “REPUBLIQUE FRANCAISE” and “PASSEPORT” you can directly see our MARIANNE.
- Statement "We consider" without links to copyright law is nothing. French passport is enough differnet case. The unnofocial COA of France is {{PD-old}} (his author died in 1909), the text in passport is {{PD-trivial}}. In addition, there are not non-free logo of non-goverment establishments in French passport. Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Using a diploma for job search is definitelly a commercial usage, since you intend to make money from it. You can even pay someone to use your diploma to find a job for you. If the diploma is i.e. for becoming a medic, you'll even stick it onto the wall of your waiting room for your clients to see.
- You are incorrect. The freedom of work must be prooved, not vice versa. Please state why abobe PD tag is correct. In addition owner of the diploma can use and copy it for own, personal purposes. The presentation of diploma in the time of job search, posting of diploma on cabinet wall and etc. are not commercial using, these are own, personal purposes. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Demand of advise
[edit]In Wikipedia and Wikimedia there are very few files of this sort of documents. So I think it’s really important to upload more. I think, that the attitude of the Russian User:Alex Spade in this case is a sort of POLICE (even KGB) action, and not a concern to make Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects richer. In case of lack of arguments (what I doubt) in favor of keeping above mentioned files, Question So, I demand to all of you the same advise that had not been responded by the initiator of this false discussion: WHAT and HOW to change so that this important illustration to the articles about ENA, French education system, diplomas and so on may stay in Wikimedia Commons? Jirnov (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete While the use of Marianne may be old, each drawing of her has a new copyright -- she is in a similar position to all works of heraldry, see Commons:Image_casebook#Coats_of_arms, where each individual realization has its own copyright. Unless someone can find specific law to the contrary or can show that this Marianne is old, then the first diploma is clearly a delete. As for the second, it has several elements that are subject to copyright and we have no evidence that it is PD. I also note that the first diploma was issued to User:Jirnov and I think it may be out of scope as too personal. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bad example and bad argumentation in this case, my friend. If an artist makes a representation of Marianne and keeps it to him like his original piece of artistic work, it’s true. His original work is protected by the law. But if he decides to send that representation to the French State via a state organization or ministry as part of an official current and common document or paper or decoration (official logo in the header of a formulary, diploma, banknote, medal, etc) that is reproduced and published without a special notice that the work of this artist is still protected, then it’s another case. He is considered as having received his fee for the work and renounced to his further copyright. An original work becomes then a common representation of the symbol of the French republic, and passes in the public domain as such. Besides, according to the article L122-5 of the French code on the intellectual property, all work that is once published publicly without notice of the protection of right passes in the public domain. Jirnov (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I express freely here my opinion and arguments and only that counts.Jirnov (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The USA Federal government rules are that all documents created by Federal employees are PD. Even with that rule, if an outside person creates a work for the Federal givernment, it is not necessarily PD -- it depends on the contract between the outside person and the government. As far as I know, the first half of that example does not apply in France -- not everything created even by a government employee is PD, so why should something created by an outsider be automatically PD? In order to prove your case you will need to (a) give us a citation to the French law you assert above and (b) show that the creator of this version of Marianne sold the copyright to the government. You must prove those things here, not simply assert that they are true. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- section L122-5 of the code has nothing at all to do with public domain and does not make anything free. It merely lists specific contexts where copyrighted material may be reproduced in fair use, such as a private reproduction, in a news story about the work itself, etc. Also, for the present discussion, it does not really matter if the patrimonial copyright is owned by the artist or by the State. Works of the State are not excluded from copyright protection. So, the work is not free anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I express freely here my opinion and arguments and only that counts.Jirnov (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It is time to close this. Jirnov has not offered any proof or citations for his various assertions. As Asclepias points out, the cited law gives situations in which fair use is permitted, but we do not accept fair use in any circumstances, so these must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader's name and image description ("we") do suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Besides, this could even be PD-ineligible. However, it can be deleted as out of scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / No OTRS permission, out of scope A.J. (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
