Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
There is no freedom of panorama in Belgium. This discussion seems relevant as well. --Rockfang (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:NuclearWarfare. Snowolf (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we're actually safe with this one. The Belgian law of 1994, whilst unhelpful in many ways, is explicit that:
- 88 (1) This Law shall apply to works and performances carried out prior to its entry into force and that are not in the public domain at that time.
- The 1994 law replaced the old 1886 law on copyright, which appears to have been life+50. (That book is from the mid-late 1980s; it notes (on p. 24) a number of nations having begun to adopt life+70 by 1985, but Belgium is noticeably not among them. From what I can tell, the 1994 law was the first major reform for some time, which suggests it's very unlikely the law was amended in the missing few years.)
- The Menin Gate was designed by Reginald Blomfield - I have to admit I am always a little hazy on who gets credited for buildings, but I think we can assume that it's the architect who's the key person here. He died in 1942; under life+70, his rights in it would cease on 1/1/2013, and the Gate is still restricted. However, under life+50, his rights would have ceased on 1/1/1993 - a year and a half before the act came into force, which leads me to believe it would continue in the public domain. Shimgray (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I was not aware of that line you quoted.--Rockfang (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! It is a very slender exemption, it must be admitted, and it did take a while to figure out... Shimgray (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I was not aware of that line you quoted.--Rockfang (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. NW (Talk) 02:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://gilsonipixuna.blogspot.com/2009/05/vista-aerea-de-ipixuna.html Ednei amaral (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The first publication is apparently in London, and all of Groom's works seem to be in 1900s and 1910s, meaning he's quite possible still under copyright. [1] is a scan of the book showing publication date and place; I'm guessing that's the only edition. I searched for WHC Groom, and turned up only a number of books illustrated by him, all in the first couple decades of the 20th century, meaning I can neither prove or exclude the theory he was alive in 1940. Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I made the screenshots from a copy of the book on Project Gutenberg, are they able to operate under different copyright restrictions? Istara (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes; they operate under US law, whereas Commons chooses not to host images that are still under copyright in their home countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- William Henry Charles Groome died in 1913[2] at the shockingly young age of 33.
Keep -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) - Speedy keep if we have a death date, I don't see any reason to keep this DR open.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Result: Nomination withdrawn by Prosfilaes. Non-admin close. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Parental release/OTRS lacking. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by the parents. The public scene does not justify publication, as this one child has been fokussed out alone. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete Parental consent needed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep An unexceptional image that would never have been put up for deletion if it were not for the photographer. Commons has never required subject releases for all portraits, which is what those voting to delete would seem to want. We accept even images of minors unless in a private place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should consider a swimming pool a public place. We don't know the status of this one, and even for "public" swimming-pools, there's a recent discussion somewhere (can't remember where, should be the talk page of a policy page) in which arguments have been advanced saying that people at a swimming-pool can reasonably expect not to be photographed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree here with MichaelMaggs. Public swimming pools are almost all places where I would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy (it may interest people to know that I actually am a lifeguard - this is something I know about). See Talk:Nudity for the discussion referred to above. However, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one goes to the pool with a photographer and their camera. Of course one can concoct scenarios where that would not be the case, however I think some small amount of good faith can be assumed here. The image should be kept since on balance, in this situation, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still don't agree, what makes you think, by looking at the pictures, that the parents went to the swimming pool with their child (I don't see them here, the children may be with somebody else), and that they allowed somebody to take pictures and publish them? Plus, we don't know whether it is a public swimming-pool, but I think that's less relevant. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I used the word "public" in the technical/jargon sense, not the COM:PEOPLE sense. Regardless who the child is with, they are the child's legal guardian for that time & for this entirely non-harmful picture by a (semi-)professional photographer, can give consent as far as I'm concerned. — Mike.lifeguard 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Still don't agree, what makes you think, by looking at the pictures, that the parents went to the swimming pool with their child (I don't see them here, the children may be with somebody else), and that they allowed somebody to take pictures and publish them? Plus, we don't know whether it is a public swimming-pool, but I think that's less relevant. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree here with MichaelMaggs. Public swimming pools are almost all places where I would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy (it may interest people to know that I actually am a lifeguard - this is something I know about). See Talk:Nudity for the discussion referred to above. However, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one goes to the pool with a photographer and their camera. Of course one can concoct scenarios where that would not be the case, however I think some small amount of good faith can be assumed here. The image should be kept since on balance, in this situation, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should consider a swimming pool a public place. We don't know the status of this one, and even for "public" swimming-pools, there's a recent discussion somewhere (can't remember where, should be the talk page of a policy page) in which arguments have been advanced saying that people at a swimming-pool can reasonably expect not to be photographed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Megapixie (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. Adambro (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep this DR is a joke, isn't it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist. A subject release is unnecessary. Prolog (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- So all we need is that some people/newspapers/... consider us an artist and the rules for normal people like FOP, personality right, model release, trademarks, ... will not apply for us anymore? Then I will be allowed to photograph minors witout permission of their parents? -- Cecil (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral The flickr picture has been deleted. Why? We don't know. But *if* a party didn't want their child to be photographed, this would exactly be what could happen (that they ask that the picture will at least be taken off flickr). BTW, just in general: The quality of the picture does never constitute a reason for keeping an image that might infringe on privacy rights. It sounds frightening how some of you argue with the picture quality!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. There are good arguments on both sides. Since our policy is somewhat fuzzy, I am closing this as keep on the basis of consensus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Minor. No release by the parents. And now, let's see what excuses you find for keeping it. Cecil (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Of all the images in category:Children, Cecil requires parental release for this one. Because it is a featured picture? Or because of the person of the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Your problems you claim are about sexual poses. How is this sexual? It's just a child playing with paint, as almost every child in the world has done at some point. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As soon, as you treat others with respect I will do that. But since you have no problems violating the personality rights of children, the most defenceless people on earth, I can't respect you. But as we can see from the category:Children there are a lot of people like you who have no problem releasing children pics for commercial use (even so unlinke you most of them probably did not know what they were doing). -- Cecil (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleteinnocent or not, there has to be a release by the parents. We are talking here about a photo which we give out under a free licence for any purpose Did the parents know this when they allowed taking this picture? Did they even allow that or was it a playing scene beside a prescool taken from the street? So if you are not 100 percent sure, delete. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There seems to be no model release signed by the parents and so the image has to been deleted. --ST ○ 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar, oder kann mir mal einer erklären wo das eingebaut werden könnte? --Ra Boe (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Changing my vote, I am a relative commons newbie can someone please provide a link to the policy on minors, thanks. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above.--Prodigynet (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Martina Nolte, basically: 1) doesn't look at all like a public place; 2) it is illegal to publish pictures of minors without the consent of their parents (and of the subject, if he's above a certain age varying from country to country), and this is especially problematic on Commons since we allow and encourage republication. Yes, I think all the "Children" category is potentially problematic and dangerous for Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The can with paint seems to have some lettering in a non-Western script. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Eusebius. The fact that the picture is featured is of course not relevant to this discussion. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)--KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep My reading of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is that model release is usually required if somebody reuses the image commercially, (added after posting:)or in a country with strong moral rights and privacy laws. It is not required to use it in a non-commercial Wikimedia project. If it were my child, provided the principal of the school had given the photographer permission to take photographs, I would be delighted the picture was released into the Creative Commons: it is visually striking and I am sure it helps encyclopedia articles to communicate with their readers. However, I would not miss it: judging by its usage according to the checkusage tool, it is quite easily replaceable at Wikimedia. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_épicentre.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- In scope as of possible documentary value related to the life and work of a (minor) notable artist. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The projects are indeed non-commercial - WMF is a 501c3 not-for-profit afaik. See COM:SOSUMI.
- That the CC-NC license are not accepted is true but unrelated to this discussion. Commons is non-commercial as far as personality rights go.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as it appears to that there is a certain agenda afoot to equate nudity with pornography. I don't believe that's the case. And isn't the subject actually wearing a nappy? As for "private versus public" - this appears to be in a classroom type setting, and the image is not derogatory. Megapixie (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I write something about pornography in my deletion request? Those requests were done by Smial. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is COM:PEOPLE for anyway when most users are not willing to respect it! --KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're not answering my comment, but I maintain that on this picture, nothing allow us to infer that it is a place with "no reasonable expectation of privacy". Since I would not allow my child to play like that in the street, it looks to me that this place is more like a homeplace or a school (in which I'd sue anyone taking pictures of my children without my consent, and in my country at least, I'd win, against the photographer and against Commons, this is why I think this picture is "dangerous" and should be removed). --Eusebius (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. The motivation here seems to be a dislike of the photographer. Adambro (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry about my mistake in assuming this was the same nominator. I would suggest that the user who nominated so many of the images by this photographer individually making it difficult to comment on them without resorting to copy and pasting is partly responsible for this though. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Marcusmax & Adambro... Electron (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to see any problem. It's a child playing with paint! Keep immediately! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality (and featured) image by a notable artist. No valid reason for deletion. Prolog (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Innocent picture from two years ago with which one can harm no rights: by the time this discussion is over, the baby has grown a beard. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per discussion Abigor talk 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.corinthians.com.br/portal/images/escudo_footer.png Ednei amaral (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 0 days
unused logo of an unknown gaming community - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete logos may be OK, but OoS anyway. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. thanks ~ bayo or talk 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Trycatch (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete OoS Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused (presumably) personal image. I can't identify the depicted person. Trycatch (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
very bad quality; unusable; Jahobr (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete -- Athenchen (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Per nomination. SV1XV (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
out of scope logo of a non-notable Brazilian shop, related article was deleted from pt wikipedia pt:Iski-li for advertising Santosga (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotional content, out of scope. SV1XV (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
According to FOP in Germany, "it is possible to take photographs of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places (i.e. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies." However, right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder. I have not found any evidence of permission. --Karppinen (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Err... With that rationale, pictures based on FOP would not be allowable at all. But since we do allow FOP pictures (which indeed have some limitations in use), there's no reason to delete this. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. As has been said before by PaterMcFly and Nard, no valid reason for deletion has been given.
Dear Karppinen, have a look at {{FoP-Germany}} again to see what's up here. --ludger1961 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per De minimis: It is an image of a city skyline not of a single building. --Elekhh (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 08:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 10:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused and outside of project scope. Uploaded solely as an illustration for a vanity article which has been repeatedly deleted according to consensus at sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som bör raderas/Avslutade omröstningar/2005/April#Hell & Bögarna. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in France. See another case by the same uploader (and same church). Eusebius (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for wax sculptures. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Italy does not have FOP for 2D artworks such as this. This is a derivative work. Similar file was already deleted. --Karppinen (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The photographer is not the copyright holder of the poster. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Got permission for it , but I doubt it's in scope-ness --DieBuche (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Depends on how notable the artist is or is supposed to become. One CD is already there at least. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: An Self-published album under own "label" in 2002according to file description without any impact or recognition so far. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, didn't see it was self-published. Maybe not-so-notable then. The image is nice, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: An Self-published album under own "label" in 2002according to file description without any impact or recognition so far. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No Public Domain. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The same it(click). --Idh0854 (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I reference next data. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No Public Domain. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC) This's no public domain. Because, copyright of this photo is here.
But, uploader is unconfirmation for copyright.
That site request delet of this photo in my e-mail.
(And, this too.)
But, don't worry.
The present, I request to copyright of 'Yun Bo-sun' use in wikipedia. [3]
In the near future, this photo will use possible.
Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Idh0854 (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Googling for "Angel Locsin Darna" show a lot of images similar to this at circles.globe.com.ph but I can't access that site to verify it (browser keeps timing out) Tabercil (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete - I'm certain that a sock belonging to Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user in the English Wikipedia, uploaded this image, along with some other copyvio images. He had a history of deliberately uploading such media here, all despite warnings, as well as inserting subjective info on articles related to Filipino actors. Blakegripling ph (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the coin's design is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- When was that coin issued? Is it the new brass-plated steel version? There is also this design (also no year of issue, but at least it shows there are different designs on different coin generations). --Dschwen (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure these are undated? They aren't dated in Western numerals, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something in an Asian script. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Squeeze.. just for the record, I meant to description page. I guessed there were some numerals on the coin. anyhow, good job decyphering it :-) --Dschwen (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. en:Devanagari#Numerals? Let's see whether I can find anything using that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- ... 2064?! Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah... about 2007 in western years. - So, we have a date. But not a reassuring date, it must be said. The other coin is 2062, or about 2005 in Western years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- ... 2064?! Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure these are undated? They aren't dated in Western numerals, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something in an Asian script. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
_-_%C3%A9picentre.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_%C3%A9picentre.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Original map was from Microsoft Encarta and was deleted as such at en.wiki[4]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
_-_épicentre.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
_-_épicentre.jpg){kind=link}
The majority of these images are free from copyright?? Which ones exactly? How do we know this one is? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, and for what reason should they be free? The given website has a copyright notice. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The "National Security Archive" is a dubious source, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Cheexecuted.jpg. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree...The hard ugly truth in this image should be retained. This picture will never go away.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted balloon. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No FOP for non-permanently placed works. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is this a piece of art or a real pighead? In the later case, it wouldn't be protectable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the Flickr page, the pig head is real. See, "The place was stinking with the smell of 2 real pigs heads ..." Blurpeace 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from indicated source: http://www.manomenezes.com.br/fotos.php?foto_id=58&page=7 Ednei amaral (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative (copyrighted) work --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Four of the source images were deleted for "Unambiguous copyright violation" - surely makes the whole image an unambiguous copyright violation, too? [5] [6] [7] [8] AllynJ (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Skyline_of_Songdo_International_City.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Songdo_Convensia.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Spaceship_landmark_on_Songdo_3rd_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Incheon_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.achetudoeregiao.com/AM/itacoatiara.htm Ednei amaral (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://img.mundi.com.br/images/Sao-Gabriel-da-Cachoeira-photo1553-5.jpg Ednei amaral (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1775170 Ednei amaral (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this really okay for {{PD-textlogo}}? While the text would be okay per se, what about the fairly elaborate background? Decltype (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: The background is in shades of beige, with no distinguishable shape or form, such background isn't elaborate or eligible for any type of copyright. Xeworlebi (t•c) 12:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Xeworlebi, the shades of the background is nothing that copyright can be claimed for. -- Neozoon (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is licensed claiming it "only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text". This is inaccurate, as the background image and possibly the beveling should easily meet the threshold of originality. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Same deletion rationale as above. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I'm closing this early. Unless there are new issues raised, we all have better things to do than debate the same image twice in five weeks. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I must concur with previous DRs, this is not in any way PD-SIMPLE or PD-TEXTLOGO. The background is undeniably complex - if it were without text, we'd easily accept it was copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Very complex. I think the previous DRs resulting in the file being kept won't change it. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- And it is also possible a court could rule this to be copyrightable because of the 3D letters and the background, and thus I think we need to delete the image per COM:PRP. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?)
Delete As per my 2010 nomination, adding that it would be prudent to err on the side of caution in cases where reasonable doubt exists that an image meets {{PD-textlogo}}. decltype (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Maybe we've all become more precautionary in the last couple of years, but I agree that this shows artistry beyond the TOO. --99of9 (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Applejuice50
[edit]- File:Invito.jpg
- File:Flyercalenzano.jpg
- File:Flyerapple4.jpg
- File:Sfondo8apple.jpg
- File:Sfondo6.jpg
- File:Sfondo5.jpg
- File:Sfondo4.jpg
- File:Sfondo3.jpg
- File:Sfondo.jpg
All files uploaded by this user are logos and photos from a MySpace account about an unknown musical group named Apple Juice. There is no related article in it, en or other wiki projects, the band is not notable and I don't see any probable use for any of these files (uncategorized since 2007), so I am nominating them for being out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Dontknow
[edit]- File:Jatairwaysduss.jpg -- confirmed CopyVio from here, see also this (german) OTRS ticket.
- File:Jat-aor.jpg -- Likely CopyVio, edited version of this pic
- File:Leskovac kolaz.jpg
- File:Sokolski dom.jpg
- File:ROSTILJO I MAZURETKINJE.jpg
- File:Nis kolaz.jpg
- File:Leskovacfromvineyard.jpg
- File:Nisairp.jpg
- File:Airlinesnis.jpg
- File:Sopocani monastery.jpg
- File:Hramsvsave.jpg
- File:Railwayterminalleskovac.jpg
- File:Cityleskovac.jpg
- File:Sarplan1.jpg
- File:Fgr1.jpg
Very likely all copyvio (first image confirmed, second image already very likely) - if those two are copyvio, can we risk the others to stay? --Guandalug (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all and block. Bad uploader. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, exif says "Photoshop" on all of them, which is very unlikely for own work. File:Railwayterminalleskovac.jpg would even require deletion because of probably lacking FOP inside buildings. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Two Klashorst images
[edit]I'm a friend of this girl's mother. She wants this picture to be removed. You can contact me on: (email address removed by mattbuck - admins may view it in deleted revisions of Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Expirimental.jpg) --Wikibert (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to point out that as part of attempting to get these deleted Wikibert vandalised the images and their description pages. Both images have previously been kept - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expirimental.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)- This should not be handled through the DR process. The person involved should contact OTRS (or they should contact him). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment before we start any discussion we need to know if the claim is real. Have the mother send an email to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org Multichill (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) - CommentI'm sorry for vandalising the images, however you were able to revert this. OTRS is now informed. I will inform the mother, so she can send an email to OTRS. I want to point out that it wasn't my intention to vandalise any page here, sorry. --Wikibert (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- 2010072410030588. Multichill (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- how does that ticket-thing work? --Wikibert (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your communications with OTRS are tracked in a secure database accessible to only a few trusted individuals. They are tracked under a database or ticket number. You won't be able to access OTRS but if you email them in the future and reference that number they will compile it together. Once they are satisfied of your bona fides, and if they agree to the deletion reason, the image will be deleted. Claims of privacy such as yours are much better handled through that process. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't feel like handling this ticket. Given the mother would mail, would we delete the file, no matter the given reason?--DieBuche (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see no reason why not. Yes, the images are widely used, but we should extend good faith towards the mother of the child. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't feel like handling this ticket. Given the mother would mail, would we delete the file, no matter the given reason?--DieBuche (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your communications with OTRS are tracked in a secure database accessible to only a few trusted individuals. They are tracked under a database or ticket number. You won't be able to access OTRS but if you email them in the future and reference that number they will compile it together. Once they are satisfied of your bona fides, and if they agree to the deletion reason, the image will be deleted. Claims of privacy such as yours are much better handled through that process. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- how does that ticket-thing work? --Wikibert (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- 2010072410030588. Multichill (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I don't understand. The child is not identified in any way, even by country. The files do not even say that she is a girl -- that came from Wikiherbert, and the categories have it wrong. She is now two years older, so certainly looks very different today from the images here. We have an unknown person asking for deletion of a widely used image -- OTRS does nothing to confirm this person's relationship to them. So why are we letting this person dictate what we do with apparently validly licensed images that are in wide use? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- +1 keep i support the argumentation of jim Bunnyfrosch (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We haven't even got a mail by the mother and the reasoning in the other ticket isn't really convincing--DieBuche (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Closed as keep through lack of further action or evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
unused page ---Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's two years old. Seems not worth keeping, but might be worth recording in the history somewhere. Maybe userfy the page to the userspace of the person who created it, as I'm uneasy about deleting protests as it might be seen as trying to erase the evidence of such protests from history. So either mark as historical or userfy (does Commons userfy essays?). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Userfying might be the solution. The page doesn't seem that noteworthy though. There are no edits other than the initial page creation and the deletion request, and nothing links to it. The person who wrote it didn't even use the page. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it still feels like part of the history and it feels wrong to delete it. Archive it, yes, but deletion? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I share the uneasiness at deleting it, despite its lack of use. It costs us almost nothing to just keep it where it is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Never used, let's remove some of the clutter from the Commons namespace. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Nothing worth saving; no significant history. (If someone wants to userify this, feel free to or ask me to if you're not an admin,) Rocket000 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. It should be moved to en.wikipedia.org. 84.62.209.203 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rather irritating, but true. I'm bundling in the other four images I just uploaded:
- File:Burj al Arab from a sidewalk.jpg
- File:Burj al Arab from road.jpg
- File:Burj al Arab with another building.jpg
- File:Burj3.jpg
I assume Commons de-linker bot will take care of the various new usages of this image.--Chaser (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia.
189.239.51.206 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Tbhotch (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion_requests/Burj_Al_Arab --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Al Arab. No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no explicit exemption in Cuban copyright law for the text of laws, so the copyright law itself might be copyrighted. There is an exemption for "the greater societal good" and most countries' jurisprudences do recognize that copyright on laws themselves is stupid because people do need to read the laws. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete So, Nard, are you Delete or Keep? Some governments make money any way they can and I guess one way to do that is to require people to pay for copies of laws. I agree that it's stupid, but many copyright laws are stupid (e.g. no FOP on buildings) and we obey them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep Unless we have something solid in the table (meaning, a law stating clearly that laws are eligible for copyright, or better yet, a state that sucessfully sued someone for unauthorized distribution of the text of a public law) I consider the text of laws to be ineligible for copyright. Simply because if we consider what is copyright to begin with, we will find that its purpose is completely opposing to the purpose for which a government (any government) would create laws. In any case, cuban copyright law protects original scientific, artistic, literary or educative works (article 2). Laws are none of such things. Belgrano (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, government works have "perpetual" copyright in Cuba. Kameraad Pjotr 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Per discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14.gif - looks like a copyvio from Sat24.com Powers (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The pictures are indeed uploaded from the Sat24 site (it's written on the picture itself...), but this is not a copyvio since no en:copyright claim can legally be made on them:
- There is no en:droit d'auteur (authors' rights) on satellite pictures, since they are taken automatically - they cannot reflect the personality of any kind of author, there is no author in the first place, thus no author's right. They only have a owner (in that case, probably en:EUMETSAT), which can rule the way they are licenced.
- EuMetSat probably left to Sat24 a license to use these pictures. The point is that eventually, Sat24 made this pictures publicly available on a database server - they probably had the right to do so. Whatever that license was is Sat24 and EuMetSat 's problem, not mine - I have no contractual link with either. A license is a special case of a contract, made between two contractors, not with the rest of the world.
- There is no author's right or copyright on databases (international convention since the en:Uruguay round). The law is uniform in Europe, where EuMetSat is based (see the en:Database right). Whatever the "license" says, a non-substantial extract on a publicly available database is legal, which is the case for the Sat24 site (and, by the way, the same case as User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat, on which the community position is quite clear).
- Biem (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you note, the license granted by EUMETSAT to Sat24 was likely unique to that particular relationship; we, as Commons, can't use the same licensing terms unless the licensing terms allow such a transfer (such as by virtue of being a free license). Sat24 explicitly disclaims this, stating that their images were attained under license and so the images are not available for free use for other purposes. How you get from those facts to "A non-substantial extract on a publicly available database is legal" is baffling, and, frankly, irrelevant. We are not concerned with what is legal but rather with what is free. If your claim is that these images are in the public domain (thus allowing you to create a derivative work and license it as you wish), we need some evidence of that. Powers (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The law (in all European countries) is that a substantial extract on a publicly available database is illegal. To know whether or not the extract was legal, you must examine if it is "substantial", this is why I mentioned it - there is nothing irrelevant in that.
- The license between EuMetSat and Sat24 is irrelevant, on the other hand, just like the copyright notices. You can't retain a right that does not exist in the first place, and (excluding a contractual relationship) you can't create a right just by writing a copyright notice : there must be a law to back it up. When a picture has no author's right, if you don't want the picture to be copied, the only solution to keep your property right is not to make it freely available in the first place - not to publish it. When a picture has no author's right, and is publicly released, it is free de facto, because there can be no legal protection on available copies : being published, the picture falls into public domain for lack of legal protection. If the license between EuMetSat and Sat24 allowed Sat24 to post these pictures, this means that it allows them de facto to be placed in the public domain. The picture itself is free, and its copy simply cannot be legally forbidden with any kind of copyright notice whatsoever.
- If I own a 10th century book and allow you (by license) to take pictures for you to put them on a website, any wikipedian can pick the pictures and put them on commons, whatever any copyright notice may say, since (1) there is no author's right on the picture in the first place, and (2) it was freely accessible to anybody, so that the law on database extract may apply. In that everyday case, you can see that the only point to take into account is whether or not the picture is under author's right, this is the constant commons policy - just check whether the picture is free.
- Biem (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you note, the license granted by EUMETSAT to Sat24 was likely unique to that particular relationship; we, as Commons, can't use the same licensing terms unless the licensing terms allow such a transfer (such as by virtue of being a free license). Sat24 explicitly disclaims this, stating that their images were attained under license and so the images are not available for free use for other purposes. How you get from those facts to "A non-substantial extract on a publicly available database is legal" is baffling, and, frankly, irrelevant. We are not concerned with what is legal but rather with what is free. If your claim is that these images are in the public domain (thus allowing you to create a derivative work and license it as you wish), we need some evidence of that. Powers (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There certainly is a case that most satellite pictures can't be copyrighted. (Not all; when the KGB points a satellite at Area 51, that was no more automatic than any camera set up with a timer.) But I know of no case law on the subject, and I'm not sure that we want to push the law here. NPG is different; it's an exact analogue to the well-established case w:Corel v. Bridgeman.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep there is case law that a painting made by an animal cannot be copyrighted, see en:Congo (chimpanzee). a fortiori for pictures taken by machines. Given that there cannot be any author's right, uploading the pictures is similar to the NPG case. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see where that WP article says anything about a court case over Congo's pictures that I see. A satellite camera is simply a camera on a complex timer and pointer system. If someone points the Hubble at a point in the sky and takes a picture, copyright ascribes in the same it would if someone pointed a cheap disposable camera at the sky and took a picture. Both the camera and the Hubble are machines that can take photographs that are copyrightable. Thus I don't regard the issue as anywhere near as trivial as you seem to. Does the photographs taken of the Earth, by a company, with a satellite, in a routine and uncreative manner, garner a copyright? Probably not, but the satellite companies are unsurprisingly vehement that the answer is yes, and I'm not sure a court would agree with us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- There has been a case over Congo's picture (and it has been discussed on commons), but it is not mentioned in the article (btw, this is why the article is illustrated by its paintings). As for the Hubble picture, there is a constant confusion (including in the mind of satellite companies) between "copyright" and "author's right" legal regimes : with "copyright" indeed you may protect any kind of publication, but "copyright" does not exist any more, and the entry point into the "author's right" regime is that the product reflects the author's personality. Meteorological pictures do not reflect any kind of personality (well, you may want to say the weather reflects God's personality, but if God owns the copyright this amounts to say they are in the public domain ;). I don't mean any kind of machine-made picture may be free, but these obviously are. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Citation needed on the court case. Even at best, the case is limited to its home nation; at worst, an American judge could have ruled that it was in the public domain due to failure to affix proper copyright notice and failure to register with the Copyright Office, and have dodged the whole animal copyright issue altogether. But that's mostly irrelevant.
- I have no idea what you mean by "copyright" no longer exists; in literal truth it does, and whatever impact w:Feist v. Rural may have had, it's still copyright. I've never seen any thing that claims that nature photography, including pictures of clouds and weather, is not copyrightable; choice of what to picture and when does in fact show a lot of personality, and "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be."Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.
- You want to push a novel, controversial, if reasonable, theory of the law. I'm not sure that's what Commons should be involved in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing novel, it boils down to what author's right is supposed to protect (since the Berne convention) : original work that reflect their author's personality. Whose creativity is reflected here, and how? Since no author's personality can possibly exist in a meteorological photograph, there can be no author's right involved. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- There has been a case over Congo's picture (and it has been discussed on commons), but it is not mentioned in the article (btw, this is why the article is illustrated by its paintings). As for the Hubble picture, there is a constant confusion (including in the mind of satellite companies) between "copyright" and "author's right" legal regimes : with "copyright" indeed you may protect any kind of publication, but "copyright" does not exist any more, and the entry point into the "author's right" regime is that the product reflects the author's personality. Meteorological pictures do not reflect any kind of personality (well, you may want to say the weather reflects God's personality, but if God owns the copyright this amounts to say they are in the public domain ;). I don't mean any kind of machine-made picture may be free, but these obviously are. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see where that WP article says anything about a court case over Congo's pictures that I see. A satellite camera is simply a camera on a complex timer and pointer system. If someone points the Hubble at a point in the sky and takes a picture, copyright ascribes in the same it would if someone pointed a cheap disposable camera at the sky and took a picture. Both the camera and the Hubble are machines that can take photographs that are copyrightable. Thus I don't regard the issue as anywhere near as trivial as you seem to. Does the photographs taken of the Earth, by a company, with a satellite, in a routine and uncreative manner, garner a copyright? Probably not, but the satellite companies are unsurprisingly vehement that the answer is yes, and I'm not sure a court would agree with us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment the animated GIF depicts boundaries between countries. I doubt the satellite created those lines and the land shading. In this case doesn't Commons require a free license for the boundary lines too? The discussion at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds may be relevant concerning the images themselves, see [9]. 84user (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a satellite photo of the ground; this is a bunch of satellite photos and a map all composited in a way that it "possess[es] some creative spark" and is copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- The composition is made by me, so there is no need to discuss its copyrightability. Biem (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, satellite images are protected by copyright unless otherwise stated. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted artistic work (the puppets) --Flominator (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Question Why are this Mannequins "Copyrighted artistic work" and the ones in Category:Mannequins not? Jahobr (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)- Window puppets artistic work? This is exaggeration, really. These are created in thousands and by machines, often according to a really existing model. Facial expression is not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and Question This is about the clothes. If the faces are protected, they can not disguise? Moreover, in this castle Meersburg not taking photographs. --Böhringer (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep.(da ich weis das Antragsteller deutsch kann...) Wo bitte soll da den sie schöpferische Leistung des Kurators sein. Die Kleidung, Schmuck udn Haarpracht ist ja vorgegeben (und dern Vorboilder sind genügend alt, um als gemeinfrei zu gelten). Und Puppe selber ist ja Industreiprodukt, und endsprechend hoch ist die SH Schwelle.--62.203.103.134 12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep clothes by creators are indeed subject to author's right, but clothes reconstructed by scientific studies are not, since being scientific, they are not supposed (in the first place) to reflect their author's personality (which is the touchstone for author's right). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I think you have it backwards. Mannequins are sculpture and there is no reason why they do not have a copyright. Just because there are thousands of copies of some of them made does not change their copyright -- or would you suggest that a photograph that appears on the front page of a newspaper goes out of copyright because thousands of copies are made? The fact that we have a category with a very few mannequins that ought to be deleted (and many PD-old) does not prove anything. The clothing, on the other hand, is PD, see Commons:Image casebook#Clothing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question Couldn’t we no just pixelate the faces? (or put black bars?) The cloth is the interesting, educational part of the image anyway. --Jahobr (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the face is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted artistic work (the puppets) --Flominator (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete See related image above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the face is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted artistic work (the puppets) --Flominator (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete see related image above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the face is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted artistic work (the puppets) --Flominator (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete see related image above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unlike the other images, the face is not de minimis in this case. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.ifro.edu.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jiparana.jpg , accessed from http://www.ifro.edu.br/site/?page_id=3250 Ednei amaral (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through his other contributions and uploads (which include pictures of people getting on and off aeroplanes) it is possible that the aerial photographs were from one of those planes, and the website you point to copied the image from Commons without attribution. Bruno jipa uploaded this image in March 2009, and the website you point to doesn't have a date on it. Is it possible to find out which appeared on the internet first? Other images uploaded by this account are tagged as authored by others (e.g. File:Jipa 2007.jpg is by a "Bruno Porto", and a deleted logo as well from ICQ). Ideally, the user will explain what is going on here and provide more information (which might enable some of his deleted uploads to be undeleted), but in the absence of that it is difficult to know what to do as insufficient information has been provided in terms of EXIF data and why other websites are using the same image. Maybe check his other uploads to see if the same thing has happened? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there is not enough information, and I think it may be better to leave it here. Ednei amaral (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: No metadata, tiny resolution, hardly active uploader, that's the common signs of a copyvio. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have FOP for wax sculptures. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, wax sculptures are subject to copyright. -- deerstop. 00:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the U.S. for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Map is way too vague. There is no definition of "decriminalized" (which in the cannabis world means you'll only get a ticket instead of jail time) and this varies from region to region. For example, in Alaska it's decriminalized only in your home. Public possession is still a crime. In California, it's decriminalized only up to 28 grams. Iran, one of the most oppressive states in the world, is also marked as decriminalized. See here, here, and here for more examples of how this map is not just inaccurate, but way too simplistic and misleading. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Deletion is not going to solve the issue then. Image is in use, so it is considered accurate enough. Commons should not delete images when there are Wikipedias using them. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with PaterMcFly. These images that summarize the legal status of an issue are useful. It may not be 100% accurate, but it is better than nothing. Improving the existing image seems better than deleting it. TimeClock871 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
