Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No Freedom of Panorama in France Triwbe (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Picture seems to have been made and uploaded by the owner of the building, the Council of Europe themselves. --Edelseider (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep AGF. -Nard the Bard 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The Council of Europe should know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As someone pointed out on my talk page, this building is officially not on the French territory. I have absolutely no idea which copyright law applies. I would tend to rely on the OTRS ticket from the Council: they "should know", as Pieter says, they would be our contact if we wanted to reach the architect, and they know what he has allowed or not. --Eusebius (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Eusebius cs. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The COM:VRTS only applies to the photo, not the architecture. Additional VRTS correspondence from the heirs of architect w:en:Henry Bernard (architect) is also required. The architect died in 1994, and unfortunately there is no commercial freedom of panorama in France which would safely bypass or ignore the rights of architect's heirs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I see no evidence of your assertion that the Council of Europe, when they granted permission for the use of this image, considered only the copyright of the photographer, and not that of the architect. It is possible, maybe even likely, that the contract under which the building was built gives them the right to dispense permission in this way. @Eusebius: 's arguments above still hold good. Before we remove such a long standing and well used image, I think we need evidence, rather than a simple assertion, that our current permission is insufficient. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of providing evidence lies in the uploader or the users in the side of defense. Such claim of contract between the Council and the architect must be substantiated, not by blanket statement like yours. Also your assumption may not apply to France: as per COM:CRT/France#Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces: The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs....While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was: The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her." Abnormal disturbance, here, may include breach of privacy (but such is irrelevant here). What I am pointing out is that in many cases, architects continue to hold copyright over peoples' images or videos of their architectural works. France is a consistent droit d'auteur country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: and I'm pointing out that we have been granted permission to use this image by the 'copyright holder'. You seem to know that this permission is not valid because the 'copyright holder' is not the architect, his heirs, or somebody to whom he has legally transferred copyright rights to, but you do not say how you know that. It seems to me that you can actually only know this if you have seen the permission email, but at no point have you said that you have. I'm asking you to provide evidence, or even a sense, of how you know. As I'm neither the uploader nor a user, I don't see how COM:EVIDENCE is relevant to my keep vote. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: the reason is because most VRTS permissions only concern the photo permission, but not the artwork permission (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buildings in Davao City, where VRTS permission was found to be insufficient, likely because the uploader thought permission comes from the owners, which is not so). Thus additional permission from the heirs of Henry Bernard is also needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: But we are not discussing "most VRTS permissions", we are discussing a specific VRTS permission. I think you have just confirmed that you have no more idea what that says than I do. And I think you need to know what it says if you want to propose basing a delete request on it not covering the requirements of French law. Have you tried raising the question on COM:VRTN?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think we also need to address whether French law even applies, given the extra-territorial nature of the Council of Europe. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: in my opinion DR is the best approach in such cases. I don't know if someone from that area (VRTN) will entertain my concern if ever. Regarding extraterritoriality, it does not apply to grounds of diplomatic missions and areas where another country owns (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Canadian National Vimy Memorial). For embassies, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg (my failed UNDEL attempt for U.S. embassy in a no-FOP country), and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-07#File:Australian_Embassy_in_Paris.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Fair enough as far as the extraterritoriality argument goes. But if we are to discuss deleting an image because the VRTS permission record is not valid, I think we need to start from an understanding of what the VRTS record says. If, as you suggest, WP procedures do not permit us to get that information, then the inevitable conclusion is that this is the wrong forum to discuss a deletion on these grounds. Kick it upstairs to the VRTN community and move on. -- Chris j wood (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- pinged to Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#2008031710012506 rubin16 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rubin16: I have updated the file description page in this edit. We did ask for permission from the architect in an email message with "Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:09:43 +0000", but got no response. Despite that, I think the presence of his name in the "© Photo credit" section of https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/disclaimer indicates they have his permission and incorporated that into their permission to us. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the first section, the keeps above, and the URL above, qualified by the lack of response to a 10-year-old email message. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per latest comments from VRT. --rubin16 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
User subpage created by commonist without asking me, deletion requested --Kprateek88 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want this page here. Commonist created it when I uploaded images. Kprateek88 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No permission. OTRS claimed, but seems to have been invalid Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's check this by a OTRS-member. I have made a request. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not valid. >
Delete ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not valid. >
Deleted. Invalid OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation apparently uploaded under the "I-found-it-on-the-web-so-I-must-own-it" licensing program. Image subject maintains an active web site and a Flickr account with similar content. In both cases there is no obvious release of copyright and the Flickr account expressly reserves all rights. No evidence provided that the uploader actually created/owns this image and there is at least on site displaying this image and claiming copyright[1]. As a result there is no reason to believe the CC license selected by the uploader is valid. --Allen3 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The upload is Brady Haran, I contacted him over e-mail to get him to upload the image. Forwarding my corrospondance to OTRS to get it handled. raeky (talk | edits) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- See ticket 2010072910002966. Uploader was Brady Haran, the copyright holder of the videos in question. Issue now dealt with? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Should be, so I move to speedy close. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- See ticket 2010072910002966. Uploader was Brady Haran, the copyright holder of the videos in question. Issue now dealt with? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Hekerui (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
File:US Navy 030616-N-9593R-206 The Korean War Veterans Memorial lies in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, near the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial on the west end of the Mall.jpg
[edit]
Uploaded before this court rulling and missed by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. The soldiers can be whited out and the edited image uploaded. I think that would be a good idea. Jorfer (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the part of the image that falls under copyright as I suggested above and uploaded it: File:Korean War Veterans Memorial Without Soldiers.jpg.--Jorfer (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree this image needs to be deleted. In fact, it can probably be speedily deleted. I do strongly disagree that File:Korean War Veterans Memorial Without Soldiers.jpg is any sort of acceptable alternative, but I will raise this elsewhere (at the Village Pump)and link to the discussion from here, as it is part of a wider problem I see with cropping when cropping is not always desirable. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, the article it references, US Copyright Law in §102-8, and the Berne convention, art.2-1 as a photo of a copyrighted sculpture within the US, the sculptor of which, Frank Gaylord, was still alive and suing for violation of his intellectual property rights earlier this year. Projects with EDPs that allow fair use (like English Wikipedia) could copy it for fair use. Qualifies for {{Fop-cv}}. — Jeff G. ツ 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added the speedy deletion tag, which looks to be a smaller backlog than the deletion one (I've heard deletion discussions can take months to close, so putting this into a speedier category looks justified). Does anyone here know whether the US Navy website should be displaying the pictures? I'm asking because in the en-wiki article I added an external link to the picture on the US Navy site, and am now unsure if that is a linkvio? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tag - I was told not to do so in this edit, preserved in User talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2010/July#Speedy_deletion_tags. I have replaced the potential usage for this file on English Wikipedia with en:File:US Navy 030616-N-9593R-206 The Korean War Veterans Memorial at ground level.jpg. I think the link you added was fair use at the time, but with the file displayed the link may be redundant. — Jeff G. ツ 20:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added the speedy deletion tag, which looks to be a smaller backlog than the deletion one (I've heard deletion discussions can take months to close, so putting this into a speedier category looks justified). Does anyone here know whether the US Navy website should be displaying the pictures? I'm asking because in the en-wiki article I added an external link to the picture on the US Navy site, and am now unsure if that is a linkvio? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yea, apparantely no one has raised this issue at the Navy since the ruling. The image was questionable fair use before and even more so now, but the Navy is not arguing that. Before the earlier case, they probably were arguing for one of the first three arguments that got struck down: transformative, architecture, and shared authorship. The Navy itself claims that these files are public domain, since there is no note, however. This is a modified version of the Navy Policy:
This is a World Wide Web site for official information about the United States Navy. It is provided as a public service by the U.S. Navy's Office of Information, Washington, D.C.. The purpose of this Web site is to provide information about the United States Navy to the general public. All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. http://www.navy.mil/privacy.asp
Which comes from this:
This is a World Wide Web site for official information about [the name of command/activity]. It is provided as a public service by [command/activity name and servicing command if applicable]. The purpose is to provide information and news about the [name of command/activity] to the general public. All information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/internet/secnav5720-47a.pdf
English Wikipedia interprets the modified version to mean the material is in the public domain unless otherwise noted as well (see en:Template:USNAVY). --Jorfer (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted (In category Copyright violations; not edited for 1 days) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) by Abigor (talk | contribs). — Jeff G. ツ 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
File:US_Navy_060906-N-1134L-013_Prospective_chief_petty_officers_from_the_Annapolis_Area_Complex_march_past_the_Korean_War_Memorial_as_part_of_their_Heritage_Run.jpg
[edit]
Uploaded before this court rulling and missed by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. This may be considered incidental inclusion, but I don't think it can given the title and focus. Jorfer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - flagged as {{Fop-cv}}; see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 030616-N-9593R-206 The Korean War Veterans Memorial lies in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, near the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial on the west end of the Mall.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 0 days
File:US_Navy_030728-N-7683J-002_The_Korean_War_memorial_stamp_was_presented_during_the_50th_anniversary_of_the_Korean_War_Armistice_held_at_the_National_Memorial_Cemetery_of_the_Pacific_(Punchbowl).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploaded before this court rulling and missed by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. It is the stamp at the center of the court ruling. Jorfer (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The image is now being used as a fair use image with reduced resolution on the English Wikipedia: en:File:Korean War Veterans Memorial Stamp Unveiling Reduced Resolution.jpg --Jorfer (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - flagged as {{Fop-cv}}; see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 030616-N-9593R-206 The Korean War Veterans Memorial lies in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, near the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial on the west end of the Mall.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 0 days
Uploaded before this court rulling and missed by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. Jorfer (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - flagged as {{Fop-cv}}; see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 030616-N-9593R-206 The Korean War Veterans Memorial lies in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, near the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial on the west end of the Mall.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 0 days
irrelevant to any form of knowledge 221.120.250.85 12:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as long as there are all the other similar images there, I cannot see anything that justify that is has less relevancy than all the others. --Dichter (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. We have far more and better images like that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nice image, good resolution, i can imagine a lot of educational uses for this image. --Erfil (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As Erfil. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as out of scope. Commons already has images of topless women and women in panties. Not sure what this adds to the collection. Wikignome0530 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep may be deleted in a year or two, if it's unused, in the meanwhile give it its chance. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Source is given as http://www.zimbabweflora.co.zw/ but terms of use there do not mention free licensing and state that permission is required for reuse. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete : File can be found on this page. Unusable on commons : "anyone wishing to use material from this website in order to publish either electronic or print works must obtain permission from us" means that it cannot be freely copied. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"anyone wishing to use material from this website in order to publish either electronic or print works must obtain permission from us; " Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, unusable. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This file has been superseded by an official SVG issued by Timex Group USA, Inc. using the original logotype source file with proper negative spacing as dictated by the company's corporate brand identity guidelines. This SVG file nominated for deletion was created from a GIF found on the web as evidenced by the unclean graphic edges and lack of appropriate spacing. Dtgriffith (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I personally have no objections in the deletion of the file! But I would definitely like to see the URL or the web source where the guidelines you have mentioned are stated. I did do Google search myself here and here and did not find anything. Additionally the logo on the website of Timex Group does not leave any space as you have mentioned. See here. --JovianEye (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The guidelines are not published on the web as it is a private company – they are individually supplied to other entities as needed. As for TimexGroup.com, the site is going through a variety of changes in the coming weeks and months where this will be addressed. As disclosed on both the Timex Group USA talk page and my own Wikipedia user page, I manage corporate communications for Timex Group. I am the key person responsible for the corporate branding and the logotype's usage. There is a lot of clean up to be done regarding the branding, and the logotypes used on the Wikimedia sites are part of the initiative.
- The rule regarding negative spacing around the logotype when used by itself is simple: the minimum distance of negative space above, below, left and right equals the height of the "X" in the logotype. Dtgriffith (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick follow up, the logo spacing within the full webpage layout on TimexGroup.com is actually correct. The file you linked by itself does not indicate the spacing attributes, the overall layout does. In the case of the Wikimedia environment, the negative space must be included in the file in order for the spacing to exist when the logotype is placed in an article. Dtgriffith (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am quite surprised that the company has not published the guidelines on the website if it wants such strong compliance! Certain private firms do publish their logo guidelines in the media section. Since the guidelines are not published on the internet, I believe that the file should be kept. IMO, the file can be renominated for deletion when the guidelines are published by company. --JovianEye (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no standard requirement for a private company to publish brand guidelines on the web, every company does what they feel to be in their own best interest for undisclosed reasons. This does not mean Timex Group will never publish any sort of guidelines in the future, but that should not be the deciding factor in this matter. Bottom line is the SVG file in question was generated using a GIF found on a third party's website, and as a result, the quality of the logotype has been mildly degraded, most visible when enlarged. The edges of the characters contain a soft blur due to the aliasing of the original GIF. If this file were to be used to create another file format it would further degrade. The quality issue alone is reason enough to replace it with the high-quality version supplied from the original source, Timex Group, and not a third party website. Dtgriffith (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Publishing guidelines is not a standard requirement. But, my point is that if the company wants strong compliance it should publish them on the internet. Additionally, I see no unclean edges even at a large resolution of 2000px. I must ask at this point. How do I believe that the file you have supplied is from an official source? I have searched the company domain for PDF files containing the SVG logo and found nothing. Also, you state that you are involved in the branding of the company. How do I believe this arguement? --JovianEye (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- As stated in my disclosures mentioned above, I have no reason to fabricate my employment. See my LinkedIn profile here. And if you don't believe that, call the company using the phone number found on timexgroup.com and ask the Human Resources department or even the receptionist about me.
- Upon further examination the blurred edges I am seeing are caused by an SVG rendering flaw in the web browser, so I will retract that argument. However, the negative spacing issue still stands.
- To answer your comment on strong compliance, we issue guidelines to each party as the logo is released for usage, which is common industry practice. This environment within Wikimedia is unique in that you were allowed to freely post the logotype in Commons without first consulting with the company. Dtgriffith (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Question If I opened two accounts under the names of BGates and SJobs and stated that I am Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, respectively, would that prove that I am each of these persons? --JovianEye (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Response: your insinuation that I would create some elaborate false persona in the attempt to replace a logo file with an officially released version from my company is both absurd and insulting, especially considering my disclosures on both my Wikipedia user page and the TImex Group USA talk page as well as my LinkedIn profile, all of which I have openly pointed you to in good will. I have added a temporary page to the Timex Group website for your benefit:
timexgroup.com/temp/info.html. Dtgriffith (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)- My question was based on genuine concerns, since you hav'nt just nominated the logo for deletion here at Commons but also do a lot of editing work for the Timex Group USA article. Online impersonations are very real. The first article here in Wikipedia Signpost is what prompted me to ask the above question. Based on the link you have provided, I am personally convinced regarding your real-life identity. I would suggest you to send a copy of the logo guidelines using OTRS. An administrator can then assist in the deletion of this file. --JovianEye (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will follow your suggestion. Since this discussion began I have requested permission to post an abridged version of the logotype guidelines on the website for future reference. As of right now I do not have an answer. The temporary link on the website has been removed. Dtgriffith (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- My question was based on genuine concerns, since you hav'nt just nominated the logo for deletion here at Commons but also do a lot of editing work for the Timex Group USA article. Online impersonations are very real. The first article here in Wikipedia Signpost is what prompted me to ask the above question. Based on the link you have provided, I am personally convinced regarding your real-life identity. I would suggest you to send a copy of the logo guidelines using OTRS. An administrator can then assist in the deletion of this file. --JovianEye (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Response: your insinuation that I would create some elaborate false persona in the attempt to replace a logo file with an officially released version from my company is both absurd and insulting, especially considering my disclosures on both my Wikipedia user page and the TImex Group USA talk page as well as my LinkedIn profile, all of which I have openly pointed you to in good will. I have added a temporary page to the Timex Group website for your benefit:
- Keep until the official logo is uploaded (logos are OK on commons), then Delete the superseded picture. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Michelet, the officially released logo from the company has been uploaded to Commons and can be seen at File:Timex-Group-Logo.svg.
unused, the better one in use Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt these images are own work. Web resolution and no EXIF data. –Tryphon☂ 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I nearly speedy deleted them a few minutes ago. Wknight94 talk 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt own work. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Tryphon, High Contrast, and Wknight. The Utahraptor (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Lower-quality version of File:Logo YouTube por Hernando.svg. (Are we sure these aren't both copyvios?) Wknight94 talk 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this, or both if copyright issues. Rehman(+) 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think the logo doesnt get copyright because of its simplicity and hence does not meet the threshold of originality. I think Template:PD-textlogo should apply. However, the current license of the file should be changed! --JovianEye (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
unidentified subject, uncategorized since 2008, no foreseeable use - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Per {{NoFoP-Morocco}}, there's no freedom of panorama in Morocco. Maybe the photo violates architect's copyright. Who is the architect and when (s)he died? How old the gate is? Taivo (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Private image, unused. In my eyes not in scope GeorgHH • talk 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Private image, unused. In my eyes not in scope GeorgHH • talk 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
usused photo of a non-notable skateboarder just holding his skate, bad quality, no foreseeable use - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
File is corrupted and was replaced as Poetry_Slam.ogg. Please delete. --77.4.39.251 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC) --77.4.39.251 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
de:Carl Ernst Poeschel died in 1944, so I believe this is in copyright in its presumable source country Germany. —innotata 18:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Poeschel was not an illustrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- If nothing but a name can be found of the author if that is true, why should consider this public domain? There is no evidence for this, then. —innotata 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- These are trading cards from cigarette packs for an album about the wonders of the animal kingdom; thoroughly anonymously published in 1933. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I own some of these books and they give the names of the photographers on one of the first pages. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- These are trading cards from cigarette packs for an album about the wonders of the animal kingdom; thoroughly anonymously published in 1933. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If nothing but a name can be found of the author if that is true, why should consider this public domain? There is no evidence for this, then. —innotata 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 11:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Insufficient information to determine whether or not this is a free image WFCforLife (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is a case for {{Nsd}}.← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 11:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. ALE! ¿…? 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (speedy deletion according to {{France-cv}}) ALE! ¿…? 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Icelandic "freedom of panorama" images are free only for non-commercial uses. --Fingalo (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wiki is non-commercial --Mef.ellingen (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted; we don't accept non-commercial material here (see COM:L). Stifle (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No longer valid --Hpagancoss (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason given to delete this file. GeorgHH • talk 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please delete all Harald or Harry Pagancoss content --Hpagancoss (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason given to delete this file. GeorgHH • talk 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
unidentified, bad quality - out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The map is most likely not free, and I doubt all the individual images are the uploader's own work. –Tryphon☂ 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. GeorgHH • talk 18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
not need. Больше не нужен. Есть отличное новое фото. --Rumlin (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Its no valid reason to delete an image because we have another, better one. GeorgHH • talk 18:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
A.Zaitsev want to delete the photo. Rumlin (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as above. we often keep more than one image of notable people and the fact that subject does not like the photo is irrelevant. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luis Mendoza
- File:Cuarto de redes.JPG
- File:Cuarto de redes3.JPG
- File:Ramirez rabago2.JPG
- File:Sistemas rr.JPG
- File:Sistemas rr2.JPG
- File:Todas las areas2.JPG
Not-notable office and computer photos. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotional content of a non-notable office. GeorgHH • talk 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please delete all content pertaining to Harald Pagancoss, no longer valid --Hpagancoss (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason given. GeorgHH • talk 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently artist only died in 1977 so not COM:PD#Netherlands (and obviously not own work) Wknight94 talk 01:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
this (photo) is a derivative of a copyrighted architecture (subject); see Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Mudam's copyright holder is its architect, I. M. Pei, who is still alive. Luxembourg has no freedom of panorama, and one cannot claim de minimis as the structure of the Mudam is readily identifiable and the main subject in this photo. Converted from {{Copyvio}} by me. Wknight94 talk 11:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mudam 01 jnl.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
this (photo) is a derivative of a copyrighted architecture (subject); see Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Mudam's copyright holder is its architect, I. M. Pei, who is still alive. Luxembourg has no freedom of panorama, and one cannot claim de minimis as the structure of the Mudam is readily identifiable and the main subject in this photo. Converted from {{Copyvio}} by me. Wknight94 talk 11:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
this (photo) is a derivative of a copyrighted architecture (subject); see Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Mudam's copyright holder is its architect, I. M. Pei, who is still alive. Luxembourg has no freedom of panorama, and one cannot claim de minimis as the structure of the Mudam is readily identifiable and the main subject in this photo. Converted from {{Copyvio}} by me. Wknight94 talk 11:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mudam 01 jnl.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
this (photo) is a derivative of a copyrighted architecture (subject); see Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Mudam's copyright holder is its architect, I. M. Pei, who is still alive. Luxembourg has no freedom of panorama, and one cannot claim de minimis as the structure of the Mudam is readily identifiable and the main subject in this photo. Converted from {{Copyvio}} by me. Wknight94 talk 11:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mudam 01 jnl.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A free picture with a copyright sign on it? There is something wrong here. --Narayan (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ugly watermark, but no problem. You're still the copyright owner even if you allow most uses. --DieBuche (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep watermarks are discouraged in commons, but nothing forbids copyright notices in CC pictures. MKFI (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, a watermark is discouraged, but not forbidden. Copyright holder is the same as the uploader. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Lack of source\irregular use
- The files File: Castilian_people.svg, File: Castilla1.png, File: Castilla2.PNG or File: Castilla3.PNG were recently deleted from Commons due to lack of source. They all represent, under a neutral name and description, a currently non-existent entity that is actually in the political ideal of nationalist parties. This new map is a derivative work from the also lack of source File: Kastilien heute.svg and it's extended according to personal tastes to ilustrate the articules related to Castile.--Uhanu (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This svg represents New Castila + Old Castile, which today is splitted in different autonomous communities. Please don't delete it if you don't like. Thanks. I suggest you proposing a map... I think that article is missing a map of Castile today. Javierllorente (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The title is: Castile today, not Castile in 19th and early 20th centuries. If you want to represent Old and New Castile you should draw, name and date them as in File:Kastilien 1833.svg, not the current autonomous communities. If you want to represent Castile today, according to the Statutes of Autonomy from 1981, only the regions of Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha and Madrid can be considered castilian, as File: Kastilien heute.svg indicates. Cantabria and La Rioja, added by you, are separate regions recognized as historic communities in its own right by the laws: Statutes of Autonomy and Spanish Constitution of 1978. This map represents the particular vision of Castilian nationalism and their claims, not a legal reality or feeling in this regions today, in 21th century.--Uhanu (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Madrid, Cantabria and La Rioja were cases of forced autonomy since they didn't want to become autonomous communities on its own; they wanted administrative descentralization but not self government (Crónica de España, Plaza&Janes 1988 pág 940). Furthermore, they didn't have a tradition of autonomy; in 1930s, the provinces of Santander and Logroño were part of Old Castile. In the Federal Constitution of 1873, Logroño and Santander were also part of the state of Old Castile. So, I think they can be considered Castilian due to historical reasons. Javierllorente (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Madrid was the only region forced to self-government in the interest of the State. Cantabria and La Rioja, as every region in Spain, acceded to self-government as historical regions with tradition of self-government as the Spanish Constitution required and aproved, and the Statutes recognized. That point was a requeriment and academic reports demonstrated. I`m sorry if you don`t agree with the oficial laws and order. In Cantabria the objetive was the autonomous community, not only the descentralization; demonstrations with thousands of people in the streets and the massive support of the municipalities demonstrated (that reference probably ignore these facts...). Anyway that is not the debate, in 2010 doesn`t exist an administrative region called Castile that includes other regions, therefore that map "castile today" has only political purposes supported by castilian nationalism. Similar maps were recently deleted, this should be the next.--Uhanu (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please cite your sources. Javierllorente (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a scan. Unverified source, doubtful authorship GeorgHH • talk 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no author, no source: likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Permission should go to OTRS, this looks like a copyvio because of the watermark and the size. --Huib talk 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, thats not a copy. That's my photo.
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be like a youtube (or other video) capture, therefore not free content Teemeah (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Non authorized reproduction from Jornal dos Sports newspaper. Yanguas (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You mistakenly assert that the reproduction is not authorized. This is not true.
In fact, I do have a written authorization from the publisher to re-publish the article.
The authorization was granted to me as part of the contract signed between Jornal dos Sports and the press area of the Brazilian Union of High School Students, of which I was vice-president at the time the article was published.
Since I was the person who was interviewed by this very same newspaper in the article, it was in their interest to fulfill the requirements of the Brazilian Union of High School Students, of which an agreement allowing non commercial use of the article was an integral part.
After having served as Brazilian representative to the Inter American Committee on Culture of the Organization of American States - OAS, in which function I had the privilege of supporting the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects, it is regrettable to observe this kind of witchhunting being performed against serious contributors.
Sincerely,
Dzimbres
Danilo Zimbres, Vice-Consul, (Fmr. Chief Parliamentary Adviser to the Minister of Culture of Brazil), Brazilian General-Consulate in Frankfurt, Cultural affairs
- Salvo especificação explícita, a autorização, como o senhor diz, é de "republicar" o artigo, portanto não se aplica à imagem de uma página do periódico. E não precisa declarar seu alegado cargo a todo momento, isso aqui não tem valor algum. Yanguas (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Caro Yanquas, A imagem da página do periódico a que o senhor se refere foi uma foto, feita por mim mesmo, de uma reportagem feita comigo por um jornal que concedeu-me o direito de usá-la. Não há, portanto, nada errado. Ninguem declarou cargo alegado algum... Foi o senhor que havia me pedido para que eu me identificasse, oras bolas... Foi exatamente o que fiz: identifiquei-me. Ao que parece, isso tb não satisfez. Começo a ter a impressão de que o que incomoda não é o fato de eu não ter, por engano, me identificado, conformei já expliquei e pedi desculpas. Ao que parece, há motivos mais profundos, que desconheço. Lastimável... De qualquer modo, apelo para nosso bom senso e sua razoabilidade: será que não deveríamos, ambos, nos concentrarmos em assuntos mais importantes?! Dzimbres 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Above threshold of originality in Germany, because simple abstractions and selection (only some relevant parts of some streets) are sufficient for that. --rtc (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that this is too much to qualify for PD-ineligible. TheDJ (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- keep URV-Paranoika. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- keep nothing is sufficient for originality. --Micha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Insufficient schöpfungshöhe. -- H005
10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) - Keep insufficient Schöpfungshöhe -- Meister 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete
On hold
P.S.: It is original authorship to draw a map ... at least that's what I feel about my map ;-) axpdeHello! 09:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) - delete there are endless alternatives how to show that content in a map, depending on the amount and kind of abstraction and the illustration. So of course there is original authorship and schöpfungshöhe. --Don-kun (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep pure facts without room for creativity. At least if there was room for creativity it wasn't used at all. --Niabot (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The same with nearly every photo: Pure facts, no creativity. And the same with the textes in wikipedia: pure facts. You see: the content doesn't effect on the copyright status. And in the toppic of the map alone lies a galaxy of room for creativity. --Don-kun (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can't compare maps with photos, since they are treated differently by law (whatever the suspicious reason may be). So far this map goes, it fails in my opinion the needed creativity. --Niabot (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Niabot, the UrhG has explicit rules for photos having no sufficient schöpfungshöhe ("Lichtbilder", as opposed to "Lichtbildwerke"), but not for maps. -- H005 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are judgements who prove that for maps there is also a very low barrier for schöpfungshöhe. --Don-kun (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The same with nearly every photo: Pure facts, no creativity. And the same with the textes in wikipedia: pure facts. You see: the content doesn't effect on the copyright status. And in the toppic of the map alone lies a galaxy of room for creativity. --Don-kun (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- delete existing originality. NNW (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- All that the author has done is rendering the relevant objects: event area, access routes, emergency routes, train station. Anyone who had the task to draw a map for the same purpose would have come up with more or less the same result. -- H005 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The map is above threshold of originality, which is low for maps. Please read de:Kleine Münze. Even minimum creativity grants you a copyright and the abstraction is creative. You are confusing maps and design works. Maps are not design works. There are different threshold of originality criteria for design works because they benefit from design patent law already. That's not the case for maps. And BTW it should be easy to make a new, better and free map. Why do you and the others above discuss instead of working on such a better map? --rtc (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why you don't create a new map? Would be a much easier discussion... --Niabot (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- file:Übersichtskarte Loveparade Duisburg 2010.jpg. But with an incorrect licence, it should contain this template. NNW (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- But this map was not "created from OpenStreetMap project data, collected by the community." – I used a plain street map by OSM, all additions were made by myself! It's just questionable whether I'm allowed to add "nc" to the CC license or not ... axpdeHello! 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.: License fixed, now CC-BY-SA 2.0 as ordered! axpdeHello! 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because I am too incompetent on the matter of drawing maps. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- file:Übersichtskarte Loveparade Duisburg 2010.jpg. But with an incorrect licence, it should contain this template. NNW (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why you don't create a new map? Would be a much easier discussion... --Niabot (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, there can be very different results. And the author did not just render objects, the objects are changed and simplified. The roads for example do not correspond to the real characteristics, they are simplified and some characteristics are highlighted. --Don-kun (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The map is above threshold of originality, which is low for maps. Please read de:Kleine Münze. Even minimum creativity grants you a copyright and the abstraction is creative. You are confusing maps and design works. Maps are not design works. There are different threshold of originality criteria for design works because they benefit from design patent law already. That's not the case for maps. And BTW it should be easy to make a new, better and free map. Why do you and the others above discuss instead of working on such a better map? --rtc (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There is an open map request on the English Wikipedia for an independent and improved map btw. TheDJ (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please be refered to BGH, decision from 28 May 1998 (I ZR 81/96). I'm quoting from the guiding principle:
- Auch eine Karte, die als einzelnes Kartenblatt aufgrund einer vorbekannten gestalterischen Konzeption erstellt ist, kann urheberrechtlich schutzfähig sein, wenn bei ihrer Erarbeitung gleichwohl ein genügend großer Spielraum für individuelle formgebende kartographische Leistungen bestanden hat. Dem in einem solchen Fall geringeren Grad der Eigentümlichkeit des Werkes entspricht ein engerer Schutzumfang. Der Eigentümlichkeitsgrad und damit der Schutzumfang kann jedoch bei einem Kartenwerk (z. B. bei thematischen Karten) höher sein, wenn es bereits nach seiner gestalterischen Konzeption von einer individuellen Darstellungsweise geprägt ist, die es zu einer in sich geschlossenen eigenschöpferischen Darstellung des betreffenden Gebiets macht.
In summary, maps are copyrighted if there was some minimal amount of freedom of expression. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't interprete it like this. There must be more than "minimal amount of freedom of expression". There must be "individuelle formgebende kartographische Leistungen". That means there must be cartographic work on it. That is not only to mark a place of an event or areal or the own house or something like that. That's not "cartographic work", this is only marking. It means that there must be things like contour lines, high mountain ranges, train tracks or such things, which are individual cartographic information and makes a map unique. --Micha (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well nearly everything is cartographic in case of a map. The text of this decision refers later on to Freiraum für eine individuelle Gestaltungsweise (i.e. freedom of individual expression):
- Der Freiraum für eine individuelle Gestaltungsweise zur Erreichung eines Kartenbildes, das möglichst zweckentsprechend, verständlich und übersichtlich, dazu klar und harmonisch ist, kann bei Karten entsprechend der Aufgabenstellung sehr unterschiedlich sein - sehr eng begrenzt etwa bei Katasterkarten, etwas größer dagegen bei topographischen Karten und regelmäßig noch größer bei thematischen Karten (vgl. Pape, Kartographische Nachrichten 1979, 228 ff.; Twaroch, Medien und Recht 1992, 183, 185 ff.).
- This explains that this freedom of expression is greater in case of topical maps (in contrast to ordnance survey maps, for example). And this map is a topical map with a selective display of cartographic elements, use of symbols, choice of colors etc. to make it more readable. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, not almoust everything is cartographic. If you take measurements on the land for contour lines then it is crystal clear that the maps must be copyright protected even so the contour lines are only black lines on the map. But simply mark a house with color on an existing map (open street map for example) is not a cartographic action. --Micha (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why discuss a lot about this (imho) bad map. Somebody could made an own (and even better) map on the base of the open street map and we could skip this discussion. ... --Micha (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, there is no point in continuing this endlessly — this map shall be replaced. But, allow me to point out that colors are an essential cartographic aspect of maps. See, for example, Judith A. Tyner: Principles of Map Design, chapter Color in Cartographic Design which quotes Mark Twain: “It's [color] got everything to do with it. Illinois is green, Indiana is pink. You show me any pink down there, if you can. No, sir; it's green.” --AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand you can just use any programm and randomize the colors. This will give nearly the same results, at least in the aspect that the colors don't compare to the actual color of the landscape. Same applies to political parties. The German CDU is labeled to be "die Schwarzen" (the blacks), but that has also nothing to do with the color or something else of the people inside this party. An color theme alone isn't worthy to be protected. --Niabot (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just a question of colours. If you compare file:Loveparade-zugang.jpg with file:Übersichtskarte Loveparade Duisburg 2010.jpg you can see that the southern part of file:Loveparade-zugang.jpg is strongly compressed and contorted. Especially the shape of the railway area looks completely different. This doesn't show "pure facts" as you claimed above, it's a work on its own.
- Btw a new map won't give the answer if this file has to be deleted or not. Copyvio is copyvio, it doesn't matter if there is an alternative map or not. NNW (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there is a better map, nobody uses this map anymore and it could be deleted anyway either it is copyvio or not. If I find time on the weekend I will make a map. --Micha (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand you can just use any programm and randomize the colors. This will give nearly the same results, at least in the aspect that the colors don't compare to the actual color of the landscape. Same applies to political parties. The German CDU is labeled to be "die Schwarzen" (the blacks), but that has also nothing to do with the color or something else of the people inside this party. An color theme alone isn't worthy to be protected. --Niabot (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, there is no point in continuing this endlessly — this map shall be replaced. But, allow me to point out that colors are an essential cartographic aspect of maps. See, for example, Judith A. Tyner: Principles of Map Design, chapter Color in Cartographic Design which quotes Mark Twain: “It's [color] got everything to do with it. Illinois is green, Indiana is pink. You show me any pink down there, if you can. No, sir; it's green.” --AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well nearly everything is cartographic in case of a map. The text of this decision refers later on to Freiraum für eine individuelle Gestaltungsweise (i.e. freedom of individual expression):
- Keep Aufgrund Schöpfunghöhe. HBR (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation: passes the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The author, Sergiy Klymenko, is a photographer. This diagram photographed by him is a non-free derivative work, unless it's old enough to be in the public domain - without any date information we must be conservative and delete. Same deal with File:Genoese fortress map.jpg. Neither Russia nor Ukraine has freedom of panorama (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Former_Soviet_Union), so it doesn't matter whether the diagrams were publicly displayed. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-free derivative work. (I'm nominating this instead of speedying it because it's used on multiple wikis and if someone wants to they can crop out the dude.) Rocket000 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Let me point out that the photographer works for Rubenstein PR in New York and she was there photographing as part of her job. I would say that this specific image is okay. Tabercil (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with copyright. The image contains a copyrighted character which isn't free. Rocket000 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that due to who took the photo, we have an implicit consent to use this particular image including Cleveland Brown. Tabercil (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do they have the rights to do it? We need more than just (assumed) consent to use it (most people don't mind Wikipedia using their images). It has to be free. Anyway, permission would be need verify for sure on something like this. Rocket000 (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that due to who took the photo, we have an implicit consent to use this particular image including Cleveland Brown. Tabercil (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with copyright. The image contains a copyrighted character which isn't free. Rocket000 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and pixelate Cleveland out. Trycatch (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and do not pixillate or crop. A picture of the cutout of the character alone would not be free, and having the voice actor holding the cutout doesn't change that. Pixillating would produce a mess of a photograph that no self-respecting publisher would use. Cropping would not produce an image any better than the ones already in Category:Mike Henry (actor). Since this image is non-free and no free elements of it improve on what we already have, there is no use for this image, hence delete. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Self-respecting publishers" using blurring and pixelating all the time. Trycatch (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point to an example where they pixellate like you are proposing? And where would you use the resulting pixellated image in such a way that it improves on existing photographs? Really, cropping and pixellation and blurring shouldn't be done just because it can be done, there needs to be a reason to do so and the resulting picture must still have some use that can't be met by another picture, otherwise the pixellated image will just sit on Commons forever and never be used. Most cases of blurring and pixellating that I see are either: (a) to protect a person's identity; or (b) to remove product details where the product is a rival of that of a sponsor or rival of someone who has paid for product placement. I've never seen examples of pixellation to avoid infringing copyright, but maybe such examples do exist. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's common practice in music videos (especially hip-hop ones) to pixellate logos, presumably to avoid trademark infringement. No one pixellates to improve the media; it's done for other reasons. Although, I agree it would ruin this image since the character takes up half of it. A crop of his face wouldn't be bad though since it's of decent resolution. I don't think it's necessary (or care), I just wanted to give others a chance to do so. Rocket000 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- And now it has been pixellated (by Trycatch). I wonder if the projects currently using it will still want to keep using it? Tabercil (the user who uploaded the picture here) was the one who added it at en-wiki, so they might replace that image there with a different one now - maybe a free and non-pixellated image of Mike Henry? If it was possible to keep track of the history of usage in other projects, we might see the pixellated image gradually being replaced as editors there notice. I'll list the places it is currently in use at here, so that can be tracked: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Incidentally, on at least 7 of those 13 pages, it was being used on articles about Cleveland Brown rather than about Mike Henry, so some action was needed here. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Imagine what people will think when they see Wikipedia trying to show what the subject looks like by using a pixellated photo. lol. I deleted the old version from the history, so everything's ok now. Since the image is still in use, we shouldn't delete it, but if everyone stops using it then we can as being out of scope (not useful). Rocket000 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well IMO the pixellation destroyed the reason why the photo was useful. It's been removed from EN, and I imagine it'll be pulled from elsewhere when realization of the change filters through. Tabercil (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Imagine what people will think when they see Wikipedia trying to show what the subject looks like by using a pixellated photo. lol. I deleted the old version from the history, so everything's ok now. Since the image is still in use, we shouldn't delete it, but if everyone stops using it then we can as being out of scope (not useful). Rocket000 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- And now it has been pixellated (by Trycatch). I wonder if the projects currently using it will still want to keep using it? Tabercil (the user who uploaded the picture here) was the one who added it at en-wiki, so they might replace that image there with a different one now - maybe a free and non-pixellated image of Mike Henry? If it was possible to keep track of the history of usage in other projects, we might see the pixellated image gradually being replaced as editors there notice. I'll list the places it is currently in use at here, so that can be tracked: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Incidentally, on at least 7 of those 13 pages, it was being used on articles about Cleveland Brown rather than about Mike Henry, so some action was needed here. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's common practice in music videos (especially hip-hop ones) to pixellate logos, presumably to avoid trademark infringement. No one pixellates to improve the media; it's done for other reasons. Although, I agree it would ruin this image since the character takes up half of it. A crop of his face wouldn't be bad though since it's of decent resolution. I don't think it's necessary (or care), I just wanted to give others a chance to do so. Rocket000 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point to an example where they pixellate like you are proposing? And where would you use the resulting pixellated image in such a way that it improves on existing photographs? Really, cropping and pixellation and blurring shouldn't be done just because it can be done, there needs to be a reason to do so and the resulting picture must still have some use that can't be met by another picture, otherwise the pixellated image will just sit on Commons forever and never be used. Most cases of blurring and pixellating that I see are either: (a) to protect a person's identity; or (b) to remove product details where the product is a rival of that of a sponsor or rival of someone who has paid for product placement. I've never seen examples of pixellation to avoid infringing copyright, but maybe such examples do exist. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Self-respecting publishers" using blurring and pixelating all the time. Trycatch (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the pixillated version has no copyright problems. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the planet is not ineligible for copyright. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, the planet is copyrighted. Kameraad Pjotr 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Canadian National Vimy Memorial
[edit]- File:Vimy Memorial From the Front.jpg
- File:Vimy Memorial From the Front (cropped & balanced).jpg
- File:Memorial Vimy face.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I think the above files may be candidates for deletion. Generally speaking, there is no Freedom of Panorama in France. If the English Wikipedia is correct, the memorial was built by Walter Seymour Allward. He apparently died in 1955. France's normal duration of copyright is 70 years after the author's death. This means the copyright would not expire on the memorial until 2026. Because of this, I don't think the above files can be freely licensed. There may be something I missed. If there is, I apologize in advance.--Rockfang (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I just added the third image. I hope this is okay. Noone has commented here yet.--Rockfang (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - The argument for keeping these seems to me to have been very well made out here. Roger Davies talk 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - This discussion seems to me, to put bit mildly, a bit academic. While (and I'm not saying this is the case) there may be some potential for a possible infringement of copyright, who will bring such a claim? It certainly won't be the French government, this is a civil matter. It certainly won't be the owners of the monument as they expressly have no standing in French law. The only possible litigant is the successor in title, in other words, the artist's estate. Is this a realistic possibility? I don't know but I doubt it very much. Have there been any cases at all about infringement of copyright of monuments to the fallen, commissioned by national governmental organisations? I haven't heard of one and I imagine that, if one had been brought, the press outcry would have been enormous. Who, in their mind, would support a case - relying entirely on what would be inevitably and widely perceived as a loophole in French law - that prevented people publishing photographs of monuments on sacred ground, and erected for the sole purposes of honouring the hallowed fallen and easing the national grief? Bearing all this in mind, where would the French courts stand? And what would they decide, given the likely implications on the thousands of commemorative monuments to the two world wars in France? I know a former president of the French Court of Cassation - a former soldier, as it happens - well enough to guess his reaction. He wouldn't entertain it for a minute. Roger Davies talk 08:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - As mentioned by Roger, the argument as to why French FoP does not apply in this case is layed out in the Category talk. In brief, the work is a collective work of the Canadian government, not a work by Walter Seymour Allward alone. The Canadian government has always considered it to be in the public domain and has never sought to enforce any kind of control, except on images it takes itself. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - As typed by
LeoboudvSkeezix1000 on that page "...the land was never deemed to be Canadian territory, and French laws still apply to the site as far as I know." Which means any comment regarding Canadian law is pretty much irrelevant. It isn't like some embassies where the building is on the "visiting" country's soil.LeoboudvSkeezix1000 appears to have misquoted the link he provided for more info. He typed: "...when several creators make inseparable contributions to a work..." but the actual document says "When several authors make inseparable contributions to a work..." I added the emphasis. There is a difference between an author and a creator. Though there may have been several physical creators, there was only one author. Allward was the designer and therefore the author. Also, French copyright deals with "...death of the author..." not death of the creator.--Rockfang (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a bit of a stretch. For one, the donation of the site from France to Canada is part of an international treaty [15], which saw France donate land, for free use and made free of all duties and imposts, for the purpose of a monument. A similar approach was taken for every other first world war memorial and Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery, none of which have every been subjected to an FoP case, at least to my knowledge. I don't think the intent would have been to donate the land for a Canadian monument and enforce FoP, against the Canadian government's wishes.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The monument was commissioned by the Canadian government and paid for by the Canadian government. It was completed in 1936. The copyright would have expired in 2006 as a previous editor noted here. This is very clear. On another issue of legality, France permanently granted/donated 117 hectares of land to Canada in perpetuity in 1922 exclusively for the construction of this monument as this Canadian government site notes. This Canadian newspaper article states almost the same thing--only it was built in gratitude for Canada's sacrifices in World War I. So, Canadian FOP legally applies to the Vimy monument in this case. Why? Because it is a small piece of Canada in France. Paris had no objections relinquishing their ownership over this land before the monument was built so why would they object today in 2010? This monument was to honour Canada's war dead in France and even the bureaucrats in France recognised this long ago. I think we should leave these images alone unless someone wants to ask the government of France to take back ownership of the lands where the Vimy monument is located. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - @Labattblueboy: In that link you provided you seemed to have missed that part that says "...necessary ground of which the title will remain in the French Government." That along with the following quote in the treaty: "The French Government grants, freely and for all time, to the Government of Canada the free us of a parcel of 100 hectares..." (my bolding, and assuming "us" is a typo for "use") makes me think that Canadian government was granted/donated the use of the land, but the French Government still owns the land. Because they own the land, we follow French copyright.
@Leoboudv: I think who commissioned the artwork, who paid the artist, and who maintains it means nothing in this case. The things do matter when talking about a "collective work". I don't think this is a collective work with regards to French copyright law. The wording in this document is:
Like I said above, there weren't several authors, there was only one. So I don't think that loophole doesn't apply. Keeping this in mind, since it doesn't apply (in my opinion), we go back to the fact that France doesn't recognize "work for hire" and the rights belonged to Allward.When several authors make inseparable contributions to a work, and a separate principal initiates and directs the process and takes responsibility for publishing the overall product, the principal takes all the ownership rights in the work.
@All: I notified Leoboudv of this discussion and I'm about to notify skeezix1000. I could be wrong, but I don't think this will qualify as canvassing because I think they'll probably disagree with me on this subject anyways. :) Rockfang (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC) - Keep, as I agree with the arguments made above and on the category talk page. I also think skeezix1000 should be invited to comment, and was about to notify them of this discussion (I would be interested to hear what the situation is with the CWGC architects and memorials). I also noted that Labattblueboy said "A similar approach was taken for every other first world war memorial and Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery, none of which have ever been subjected to an FoP case, at least to my knowledge" (I too haven't seen WWI memorials in France or Belgium challenged for FoP, but a search reveals plenty of such challenges for memorials in the USA). I took photographs of a WWI memorial in France that I visited in 2007 and I have been uncertain for the past year or so of the status of those photographs - for what it is worth, I think that French law does apply regardless of the land being given in perpetuity. I recently summed up my FoP concerns and responses for all the pictures I took in France (see here), and on the talk page of that page I summarised some of the details of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission architects (who were employed on a salary by the IWGC as it was then known) and I said there that I think a single debate for all those memorials and cemeteries would be useful (though the Vimy Memorial is different to the other CWGC memorials), followed by the drawing up of a template or set of templates summing up the situation, and then placing that template on all such images and image categories. I would prefer this approach to a piecemeal approach for each memorial and cemetery. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw - Apparently, I've wasted everyone's time with this request. That wasn't my intention. I apologize. Feel free to close this as withdrawn if desired.--Rockfang (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for the note on my talk page, Rockfang - much appreciated. My comments may be academic, given Rockfang's withdrawal of the nomination. And I have already explained my views on the category talk page. I would note that there was an attempt above to distinguish between "creator" and "author", yet the document cited refers to them interchangeably (even referring once to "creator or author"), and it's a distinction without a difference as I could have just as easily used the word "author" on the category talk page. And Rockfang has offered no support for his assertion that Allward is the sole author under French law and that the engineers, architects and other members of the team are not considered authors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as nomination was withdrawn and as images seem to be covered by Canadian FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Photographs by Secretary of Press Palácio do Planalto by website with Copyright violations - "© 2003 Press Secretary - All rights reserved". Péssima (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This DR includes as well Template:Attribution-PresidenciaBr, the licence tag for this category. Belgrano (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I've found the following statement in the website: "Photographs of official events are available through this site and can be used, free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged. [...]" To get access to this warning (in either English or Portuguese), just go to the homepage, then click at "Fotografia" on the menu to the left of the page and then on "Normas", just under the calendar. Victor Lopes (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As Victor Lopes says, they are apparently available without restriction except for attribution. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-authorized reproduction from IstoÉ Senhor magazine #1049 oct 25, 1989. Yanguas (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You mistakenly assert that the reproduction is not authorized. This is again not true.
After having served as Brazilian representative to the Inter American Committee on Culture of the Organization of American States - OAS, in which function I had the privilege of supporting the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects, it is regrettable to observe this kind of witchhunting being performed against serious contributors.
Sincerely,
Danilo Zimbres Vice-Consul (Fmr. Chief Parliamentary Adviser to the Minister of Culture of Brazil)
- IstoÉ magazine is a private property. You do not have authority over it. Yanguas (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This is ludicrous... Of course I do not have authority over Istoe magazine... No one does have authority over Istoe magazine, in fact. What I do have, as I have clearly stated, is the right to use the interview, under the terms of an usage agreement signed with the magazine.
Since I am not using it for commercial purposes and since what I am using here in Wikimedia is not the interview, but rather a picture of the magazine I took, with my very own person depicted on it, there is no copyright infringements.
What is the purpose of this witch-hunting? dzimbres 16:50, 06 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, "cannot be used commercially" is not fee enough for Wikimedia Commons. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work --DieBuche (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Jest uzupełnieniem: File:SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) z en:SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary). Pod podaną nazwą występuje na wystawie w muzeum. Jest jednym z serji zdjęć z Daru Pomorza. Zgadzam się że model nie należy do fotogenicnych, ale nie chciałem zmieniać kolorystyki. Jaki jest powód zgłoszenia? Topory (talk)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearlt this logo contains not only simple geometric shapes and text but some graphical parts, like flames around leter S, therefore definitely cannot be considered as "simple" and therefore PD. Moreover, as can be seen in file history, the original logo was the one from the SH webpage (even more flames) and some of them were lost due to the later conversions/re-editions. So now: 1) it's not the SH logo (many changes alternating its original character) and 2) still contains non-PD graphical parts. --Masur (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any graphical elements, even in the original logo. Just some yellow stripes. Definately simple enough in the actual image. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- erm here the flames are clearly visible, as well here. In the last case it definitely makes font "not trivial" anymore. Moreover, it's not original SH logo. It's one's private interpretation of it. Original one is different. Masur (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, passes the threshold of originality and thus protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a scan. doubtful authorship GeorgHH • talk 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, so no evidence that this image is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Armenia. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Former_Soviet_Union Completing RfD by User:Wertuose--DieBuche (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in Armenia. Kameraad Pjotr 12:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Empty category. Undeleted in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic). The undeletion reflects some bad misunderstanding of the scope and the aims of Commons and is a bad case for the future argumentation in favor of empty categories just because they are part of a system. Commons is not a database or a project to build a database of railway lines in category namespace. Categories are used to organize media files, if there is no media file then there is no need for a category. Again I emphasize that it cant be so difficult for someone who is familar with this country to find at least one photo of a station or train on this line or some other related media file to make this category valid instead of fighting for an empty category. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful for structural categories to have a template "structure under construction" that disappears when the first image arrives. (As with the uncategorised template). This is even more the case for categories that prepare for cities and villages in certain areas. When creating them systematically, it is much more efficient and correct, while if they are created on a need base, there are many mistakes (and duplicates) that take many interventions to get corrected. --Foroa (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do support the deletion. The deletion is according to our deletion policy. The empty category can't be kept without changing our policy. By the way, even creating categories systematically, does not make it more likely that less mistakes (and duplicates) occur (Category:Burgh Le Marsh/Category:Burgh le Marsh). Maybe it's better to fill this category with a dummy image, like File:Map of Czech railways.gif (it's ways better than categorizing the File:Banner "Under Construction" version 2.jpg). Then it's not empty any more, we don't have to argue in favor of an empty category and we don't have to change our deletion policy. --Ephraim33 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well filling a category with irrelevant images just to work around our deletion policy is actually worse than keeping an empty category, in my opinion. What Foroa suggested seems to be the way to go; it will make it clear to admins that the category is part of a scheme (thus avoiding time-consuming checks), and allow for more coherent category trees that can be filled once the relevant images have been uploaded. So keep. –Tryphon☂ 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You got to look at more than just a list of common deletion reasons. There's no policy that says we must delete empty categories. We have hundreds of them. If I systematically starting deleting these I would piss off a lot of good users that maintain our categories. In my experience, the vast majority of users have no problem keeping these (in fact they yell at me when I delete them). Wikilawyering isn't helpful. Rocket000 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Arguments were brought on the page Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-07#Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic) and in the mentioned previous discussions. This category (and the whole categorization system of Czech railways) is established as a systematical, purposeful and effective instrument to organize media files of Czech railways. The deletion of this category would bring no benefit and can uselessly disrupt the unity and usability of the categorization system of this topic. --ŠJů (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Empty subcategories of Category:Railway lines in the Czech Republic by number. --ŠJů (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OpposeI support to delete in general empty pages. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)- Oppose... all statements like "systematical, purposeful and effective instrument to organize media files" are quite scary for me. --Aktron (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It cost nothing to keep this and may save confusion/bad naming if it were recreated in the future. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. And to support this opinion, I have just added a picture.--Sapfan (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thx, that was the only requirement to make an empty category, which is always subject to Commons:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion, an allowed category. I removed the trick with File:Banner "Under Construction" version 2.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)