Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Declined speedy; brought to DR for wider discussion. The Ghana Copyright Act of 2005 (here) does not list architecture as a work eligible for copyright (I.1.). Does, then, architecture fall into the protected category of "artistic work"? Note that "architecture" is a term used in other parts of the act (e.g. 19.f.), so it does indeed appear to be a separate and existing concept in Ghana law . -Эlcobbola talk 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Never mind. Interpretation section elaborates that architecture is an artistic work Эlcobbola talk 13:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot or a picture from a computer game Huib talk Abigor @ meta 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images on the source Flickr profile are promotional images from adidas, and they're marked "rights belong to adidas". It seems the CC license doesn't apply. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From a suspect Flickr account. See: COM:QFI. No reason to believe license is valid. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - This image is probably protected by copyright and can not be used in the Commons. Truu (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
not needed in further time Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: content was: '{{delete|reason=not needed in further time|subpage=Category:Emergency_services_of_the_Technisches_Hilfswerk|year=2010|month=August|day=11}} Technische Nothilfe (TENO): Category:Organizations of the Third Reich
i uploaded the wrong image Paul van der Vegt (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. --High Contrast (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. Instead of displaying the Greek letter Theta in the font Times New Roman, it displays a black block. I don't know why. Since this file is useless, may it please be deleted? Thank you. T c951 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Speedydelete
Unused personal image Thorjoetunheim (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, out of scope, "asdg" is not descriptive. (File:Neculay33.JPG is already deleted [1]. That leaves File:Neculay22.JPG?) -- Asclepias (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Asclepias. No encycopedic use possible; no categories; no image description … --ireas :talk: 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:Neculay33.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. ZooFari 00:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused promo photo of music group with no notability - vanity, out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private photo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
See requirements, no commercial use grillo (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That link doesn't work. Can you summarise what's going on? As it's uploaded under a "simple geometric shapes and text" copyright tag, and is rather more complex than anything else I've seen accepted under that, I'm inclined to vote Delete, but am not sure I understand the situation. It's also rather different from File:Österåker vapen.svg, which is confusing. What's going on? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a heraldic coat of arms. The municipality in question didn't like the one that was created as an svg based on the blazon, so they uploaded their own one, that probably had a generic file name on their local computer (vapen is Swedish for coat-of-arms). The link works for me and says that the coat-of-arms can not be used commercially, which is of course nonsensical. However, this interpretation of the blazon used as a logotype (something different than a coat-of-arms) can't be used commercially, which is probably what they mean. Thus, this file must be deleted. The uploader probably just chose a licence at random, as evidenced by a discussion on svwp about the coat-of-arms here. Probably the most common question on svwp is from municipalities complaining that we use the "wrong" coat-of-arms, because the people in the marketing department of the municipalities don't know anything about heraldry. This has even in one case escalated to a small article in one of Sweden's largest newspapers! [2] /grillo (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then: Let's delete it unless they clarify. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a heraldic coat of arms. The municipality in question didn't like the one that was created as an svg based on the blazon, so they uploaded their own one, that probably had a generic file name on their local computer (vapen is Swedish for coat-of-arms). The link works for me and says that the coat-of-arms can not be used commercially, which is of course nonsensical. However, this interpretation of the blazon used as a logotype (something different than a coat-of-arms) can't be used commercially, which is probably what they mean. Thus, this file must be deleted. The uploader probably just chose a licence at random, as evidenced by a discussion on svwp about the coat-of-arms here. Probably the most common question on svwp is from municipalities complaining that we use the "wrong" coat-of-arms, because the people in the marketing department of the municipalities don't know anything about heraldry. This has even in one case escalated to a small article in one of Sweden's largest newspapers! [2] /grillo (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused user image + Out of scope Thorjoetunheim (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused user image + Out of scope Thorjoetunheim (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
not freely licensed: NC and ND on every http://www.therabbit.it/ page links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ see also File:FTR_Bob.png 84user (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
not freely licensed: NC and ND on every http://www.therabbit.it/ page links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ see also File:FTR_Bob.png 84user (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Useless. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 
21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private photo; unidetified person - out of project scope Kaganer (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private photo; unidetified person - out of project scope. Kaganer (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused user image Thorjoetunheim (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is really own work, maybe own work by editting the picuture but not taking the picture. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete very obvious copyvio: [3]. Trycatch (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A collage of fair-use images should not be on Commons and it is not apparent from the upload that these images are free of copyright Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Comprised of non-free artwork. fetchcomms☛ 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
possible copyright violation Liangent (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete very probably a copyvio: that sort of images requires a long telelens that is beyond the means of most photographers (including professionals, who are lent such lenses by their agencies). The resolution is consistent with "press image found somewhere over the Internet". Rama (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio, from [4]--shizhao (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as well as the most of the uploader's contribution. Mass DR would be fine. Trycatch (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also please blacklist flickr user cw_cheung. It seems most of images uploaded by this uploader are from there. Liangent (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of a preacher with no notability/vanity - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Freedom of Panorama in France (unlike the creator's home country) and this is artistic enough that it's at best dubious if we can host it --Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG){kind=link}
- I had similar doubt during uploading and I hoped for a community discussion; the citation part in itselves seems not to be a problem; also the portrait is not original in itselves, but the combination may fall under NOFOP in France. Whatever desicion one takes, is good. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the text is a literary work, clearly protected by copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.78.24.168 (talk • contribs) 10:01, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- There are stronger grounds for deletion than this: the texte is just a short quote between citation bracquets and no doubt allowed. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
- Copyvio of the sculptor's rights.
- Copyvio of the rights of the author of the text. Even short quotes are copyvio unless fair use applies and we don't accept fair use.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
_plaque_Jules_Supervielle.JPG){kind=link}
Also found at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=516812&page=265 so I suspect a copyvio. Same with File:Airport_express_2.jpg found here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=516812&page=266 . MGA73 (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio. I've also added to the DR other pictures by the same user (if MGA73 will not object to this):
- File:610xiv.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=59145097&postcount=4586
- File:610x3v.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8359612&postcount=1
- File:T3 138482g.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - http://amazingearths.blogspot.com/2010/07/delhi-airport-terminal-3-photo.html
- File:New3-t3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - http://risingcitizen.blogspot.com/2010/07/pictures-of-igi-airport-t3.html
- File:T3 night.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:T3 concourse day.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Terminal 2 and 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Trycatch (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmar Kristinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
logo of organization with no notability or fake as decide here nl:KSA Reinaart - out of scope Santosga (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was 2001 Hornsteinar, Ingimundur Sveinsson. He lives. --Fingalo (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia. 84.62.200.247 11:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia. 84.62.200.247 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
PAPER CUT OF newspaper Jayanta Nath (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
converted from speedy. reason was: Out of scope Amada44 talk to me 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:PS --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
converted from speedy. reason was: Out of scope Amada44 talk to me 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:PS --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
photo is repeated 16 times in this image, all parts are similiar and with low resolution - bad quality, unusable, better images can be found in Category:Capitole de Toulouse Santosga (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
unused and unnecessary chemical equation formula, its content can be better inserted into wiki pages as text Santosga (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
unused and unnecessary chemical equation formula, its content can be better inserted into wiki pages as text Santosga (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of musical band with no notability as decided here de:Shi-Kai - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviosly someone has mistaken scanning cover with creating an own work. Στε φ (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, but I'm new here, and I made a mistake. I didn't know, what to write in the line "author", I will immediately correct this part and write in the creator of the original picture. Ino-h (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Deletion request should now be closed, the 'source' of the scanned disc-cover has been improved. Krank-Hover (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did R.Ulmer give his permission? Does he even have the right to give that permission? Or did he sell it to the record company? Source alone is only half the fun.--Στε φ (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- hallo Στε φ, what you claim, is all unknown, so what can be done? is there no chance to rescue this picture? the picture just illustrates very good the wikipedia-article "heidi kempa", the record-label doesn't exist anymore, the name of the unknown photographer is on the reverse side of the cover, at least Heidi Kempa gave permission for the publication Krank-Hover (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did R.Ulmer give his permission? Does he even have the right to give that permission? Or did he sell it to the record company? Source alone is only half the fun.--Στε φ (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Deletion request should now be closed, the 'source' of the scanned disc-cover has been improved. Krank-Hover (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tempting as it may be, we respect the rights of all authors of works, even if unknown. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
not freely licensed: NC and ND on every http://www.therabbit.it/ page links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 84user (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I checked the Internet Archive in case the webcomic had a different license in the past, but the earliest was 2006-05-14 and it shows the same NC ND license: [5] has "Follow The Rabbit © 2001-2006 Simonazzi /FarèTutti i contenuti del sito sono su licenza Creative Commons", which linked to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ -84user (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 16:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The image description says that "publishing this image under GFDL has been granted via print in the copyright notes of the actual book" - well, by chance I have seen a copy of the "actual book" today, and there is nothing at all in the copyright notes suggesting that publishing this cover photo under a free license is accepted. After all, the book is from 1961/1962 (second edition), and of course the GFDL did not exist back then. But there is also no other indication of free use of any kind. The imprint says (in German): "Umschlag unter Verwendung des Fotos von Paul Weber, Luzern/Davos, und Einband von Johannes Boehland. V. Nr. W. 571 - (C) 1961 F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden - Printed in Germany. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus photomechanisch zu vervielfältigen (Photokopie, Mikrokopie)." I.e. "all rights reserved" and no copying without express permission of the publisher. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Why should this image be free? Huib talk Abigor @ meta 21:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't make sense to me either--DieBuche (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, user w:User:FELIXARD claims that he is w:John Cameron Mitchell. It's dubious because his ticket was rejected by OTRS. But a second opinion on it would be interesting. Trycatch (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
- Even if w:User:FELIXARD is w:John Cameron Mitchell, he is the subject of the photo and not the photographer. It is very unusual for professional photographers to license their photos as broadly as we require. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is not the self-made file of the uploader but it was directly looted for the source that he/she say (http://topicstock.pantip.com/library/topicstock/2006/12/K4972568/K4972568.html#106). I, User:Xiengyod, am the same people named "เซียงยอด" in pantip webboard who posted this picture in this site. Xiengyod (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted by Zscout370: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal_police_flag_(national_Trairanga).png: This file is not the self-made file of the uploader but it was directly looted for the source that he/she say (http://topicstock.pantip.com/library/topicstock/2006/12/K4972568/
.png){kind=link}
SVG version is valid as File:Great Crown of Victory (heraldry).svg which was extracted from the same file (File:Flag of the Thai Defence Minister.svg) Xiengyod (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Great Crown of Victory (heraldry).svg
copyrightviolation --Schnellbehalter (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Question OF what -- give us a link, please. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.feuerwehr-waidbruck.it/images/Uebungen/1_2.jpg --Schnellbehalter (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since August 10, 2010
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file just an enlarged version of the flag from Ministry of Culture of Thailand website, not a PD-self work. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
wrong depiction of the siamese white elephant flag. According to the law, the elephant must be faced to the hoist as showed in File:Flag of Thailand 1855.svg, but this image was faced to the fly. Morever Xiengyod (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, early as a copyvio.. This uploader has uploaded this file before and it was deleted as a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of User:Eleanorvendy
[edit]
Both files - logo and photo - regard a rock band with no notability or article in any wiki project - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of User:Youth Empire
[edit]- File:KRUNK II.jpg
- File:VAUNT II.gif
- File:VERVE.jpg
- File:PRESTIGE.jpg
- File:Youth Olympics.JPG
- File:FAT KIDS.jpg
- File:Vaunt3.jpg
Unused logos and other promo material from a youth organization with no notability as voted here en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Youth Empire - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
we don't need a cat just for one picture :) Bersam (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is not such a rule that defines a minimum number of pictures per topic. The fact that an image is encapsulated in a category allows to have a proper name and to categorise it in a number of categories that are meaningless without proper name and sort, such as living people, people by name, birth and death years, ... Moreover, a proper categorisation facilitates largely new incoming images and overall categorisation. --Foroa (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)- Keep of course, Foroa put it well. No reason to delete a "bone", even if we do not have enough "meat" for now. It will be very useful if somebody would upload a second image, it's useful to create wikilinks (this for now cat is linked from it and fa articles) and so on. Trycatch (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- there's another reason , this article has been deleted in en-wiki for notability ,also please see these Discussions here .i think she made these are with multi accounts in 4-5 big wikis .--Bersam (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop the witch hunting. You managed to get her artticles deleted on the en wikipedia and attempted on other wikipedias, she's still on 9 other wiki's. Is she not enough moslima to get a place or what ? --Foroa (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Before start personal attacks on me just see the history and Discussions and see i was there or not and if it could help you please read reasons why this article has been deleted there,I just care about notability of her and i'm sure she's not.She Use interwikis and self published What you said again ,interwikis articles.Also I want noticed you this is not about me so just talk about this category . --Bersam (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was not intended as a personal attack, I just don't understand the crusade against her. If she has articles on 9 wikipedias, who am I to state that she is notable enough ? Commons is here to serve all wikipediae, even as a preparation for future articles, so with very limited notability. Spending 1 minute on google search says enough. And frankly speaking, your account seems to be a single purpose account here. --Foroa (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- But her article has successfully passed deletion review in fa-wiki: w:fa:ویکیپدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/ترانه جوانبخت -- notability standards differ drastically in 200+ local Wikipedia projects, also don't forget about Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and so on. Commons is not the place where the decisions of the local projects can be overruled. Trycatch (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please also see here here . Trycatch , okey i'm out of this Discussion .--Bersam (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- there's another reason , this article has been deleted in en-wiki for notability ,also please see these Discussions here .i think she made these are with multi accounts in 4-5 big wikis .--Bersam (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete She is just a wiki user, who has created articles for herself in different projects. Recently her article was deleted in English wiki. She doesn't have enough notability at all. --Wayiran (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete may this used for making notability also i don't think a category for just one picture is really needed. (@Foroa: this is really have not any relation to that you think(is not enough Muslim!!!), if you don't believe, you can speak with me in #mediawiki irc channel.) --ebraminiot 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. since there are still many interwiki's using the image . Mardetanha talk 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pantone color systems cannot be used in free software. 84.62.200.247 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- While the process may well be copyrighted, I'm not sure I buy that this image is infringing: It merely shows text and colours, and isn't even calibrated or high-res enough to replace the original product in any way. Keep barring arguments to the contrary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Adam. Colors cannot be copyrighted, only the color system, which cannot be derived from this image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright violation. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jafeluv (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This logo, though small, is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It should be moved to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair-use justification. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free logo Belgrano (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Bengali Script Sample.svg displays the second word (lipi) incorrectly with the vowel signs on the wrong side of their consonants. You can see how the word should look in this image: File:Bangla Lipi.svg — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's more of a reason to fix than to delete. Commons:Graphic Lab would be a more appropriate place to bring this up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, upload a better version over this version if it is incorrect. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Redundant Svgalbertian (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The image is an exact scaled down duplicate of File:IEs4Linux logo.svg. It is not used in any articles. It is not required for any image "attribution path". It is not a "hand-tweeked PNG" and offers no advatages over the autogenerated PNG created from the SVG version.--Svgalbertian (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No need to delete it even when the SVG is pretty similar to it. Diego Grez return fire 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. He was a competitor at ISU World Cup Short Track for India. At the very least he is notable by ru-wiki inclusion standards. Trycatch (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete He says he was a competitor there. There is no verification, and no Google hits on the name that are not promotional. It is also significant that this photo is the second Google hit -- that's not usual for notable people. Note also that the uploader is the subject of the photo and the accompanying article. I'm reluctant to close this as a delete over Trycatch's keep, but it looks like spam to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the number of Google hits is alerting, but looks like he is really the pioneer of Indian short track: [6], [7]. Trycatch (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Changed speedy in DR it was nominated as copyright violation with the following reason:While the photograph taken by the user would be free, the work they are picturing: a living person off a television screen, appears to be copyrighted and assuredly under copyright (2009); this is a 2D recreation of a copyrighted work and thus cannot be used on commons and would likely not be usable on en.wiki or others. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not a scene or a "take" of an ongoing creative project. This is a candid shot of the director himself, seen through an on-set production monitor, in between takes. It was taken at the director (Brad Mays') request, for use on Facebook and other online interests. Evalpor (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting case. If the production monitor camera were a fixed camera, on a wall mount or bracket, then there is no copyvio because it is well established that fixed cameras do not yield copyrightable works. If, on the other hand, the camera had an operator, then he/she or his/her employer would own the copyright in the work and it's a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation (based upon the Precautionary principle). Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW Huib talk Abigor @ meta 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
photo is not uploaded by author, no OTRS, license status is not clear Ronn (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
photo is not uploaded by author (he died in 2000), no OTRS, license status is not clear Ronn (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 22:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that this was first published in NZ. The date of death of the depicted person has no effect on copyright and is not an evidence for publication nor country of origin of this work. Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Myers (judge).jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep - becausue NZ copyright say "published or CREATED before 1960. Look this photo like photo of 14 years old dead body?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.29.30 (talk • contribs)
- The template is little tricky, New Zealand has 50 after death rule if the creator of a photograph is known (i.e. paragraph D of the template is applicable in this case). Trycatch (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again Keep - read template better: "For photographs, manuscripts, archives, music scores, maps, paintings, and drawings published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown (case A)" is copyright: photo taken or work published prior to
- January 1, 1960
- this photo MUST BE taken before 1960! Yes, rule of 50 years of protection exist, but (1960+50=2010 !), becausue, this file fallen in the PD. --77.48.29.30 08:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown" -- it's not true for this photograph -- it wasn't published anonymously. See page Illusrations. So case A is not applicable. Trycatch (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
with all indication that is PD.Appears to be published in 1958 in "The History of the Jews in New Zealand", Wellington, which is before 1960. --Elekhh (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Found source indicating author. Stanley Polkinghorne Andrew, died 1964. -Elekhh (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently this image was donated in 1969 to the Alexander Turnbull Library which is in custody of the w:en:National Library of New Zealand. It states "unrestricted". It was taken in 1927 and a highres version is available here. --Elekhh (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Often, national librairies mention for each of their images if there are special restrictions, besides the general restrictions applicable to all their images and besides the copyright. Thus, in such context, "unrestricted" typically means that there are no restrictions other than normal restrictions and copyright. Unless specified, that should not necessarily be taken to imply anything about the copyright, which must be determined normally, from the relevant informations. Also, the fact that the image was donated to the library does not, per se, nullify the copyright. Actually, if we look at the "terms of use" for that image (button at the bottom of the high resolution image page), it says : [8] "The item you are viewing is made available for personal research purposes only. It must not be reproduced, downloaded, printed, adapted, distributed or published without the permission of the National Library of New Zealand and, where applicable, the copyright owner." etc. And, as far as we can tell from the information, in this case there seems indeed to be applicable copyright, owned by the successors to Andrew. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a standard "terms and conditions" though... I would suggest contacting the library and finding out the copyright status. --Elekhh (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Often, national librairies mention for each of their images if there are special restrictions, besides the general restrictions applicable to all their images and besides the copyright. Thus, in such context, "unrestricted" typically means that there are no restrictions other than normal restrictions and copyright. Unless specified, that should not necessarily be taken to imply anything about the copyright, which must be determined normally, from the relevant informations. Also, the fact that the image was donated to the library does not, per se, nullify the copyright. Actually, if we look at the "terms of use" for that image (button at the bottom of the high resolution image page), it says : [8] "The item you are viewing is made available for personal research purposes only. It must not be reproduced, downloaded, printed, adapted, distributed or published without the permission of the National Library of New Zealand and, where applicable, the copyright owner." etc. And, as far as we can tell from the information, in this case there seems indeed to be applicable copyright, owned by the successors to Andrew. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that the author died before 1961. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [9]. Yann (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=731511932#File:Louis_Barnett.jpg){kind=link}
Same image is Fair-use on en:wiki; ineligibility is disputed because work clearly involves creative input. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Obvious copyright violation. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 10:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is not that obvious. Who would claim the copyright? Is it not the same as with Nazi related material in Germany ie no copyright can be claimed? GerardM (talk)
- Keep old anonymous logo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, image is still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 20:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW afgeleid werk Huib talk Abigor @ meta 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, copyrighted elements are de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 22:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:War flag of Thailand (World War I-Reverse).svg was fixed (N.B. It's an uploader request) Xiengyod (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted, uploader request, file is not used. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Toubabmaster
[edit]- File:Les aiguilles de Port Coton.JPG
- File:Bateau Belle-ile.JPG
- File:Port Coton.JPG
- File:Cote sauvage Belle-ile.JPG
- File:Coucher de soleil sur le port du Palais.JPG
- File:Saint Patern Vannes.jpg
- File:Cathedrale vannes.jpg
- File:Hoedic.jpg
- File:Houat.jpg
- File:Phare de Creac'h.jpg
- File:Ile Holavre.JPG
- File:Ile Irus.JPG
- File:Iles Logoden.JPG
- File:Phare de la pointe des poulains.JPG
- File:Feuille de Cannabis.jpg
- File:VSAV.jpg
- File:Tombereau Volvo A 25 C.jpg
- File:Villa Rose Séné.JPG
- File:Villa rose Séné 1.JPG
- File:Vue Pointe Arradon.JPG
- File:Pointe d'Arradon.JPG
- File:100 0733.JPG
- File:Pointe d'Arradon1.JPG
- File:100 0580.JPG
- File:Cote belle-ile.JPG
- File:Côte de belle-ile.JPG
- File:Pointe des poulains 4.JPG
- File:100 0584.JPG
- File:Roguedas.JPG
- File:Ile Boëdic.JPG
- File:Cadouarn.JPG
- File:Conleau.1.JPG
- File:Conleau.2.JPG
- File:Pointe des émmigrés.JPG
- File:Villa rose Séné.3.JPG
- File:Roguedas.1.JPG
- File:Le Bono1.JPG
- File:Le Bono2.JPG
- File:Le Bono3.JPG
- File:Camion GRIMP.JPG
- File:Pompiers GRIMP.JPG
- File:Vieux pont du Bono1.JPG
- File:Vieux pont du Bono2.JPG
- File:Vieux pont du Bono3.JPG
- File:Vieux pont du Bono4.JPG
- File:Vieux pont du Bono5.JPG
- File:Pont Joseph Le Brix du Bono.JPG
- File:Rivière du Bono.JPG
- File:Pont du Bono.II.JPG
- File:Sinagot.Locmariaquer.jpg
- File:Remparts de Vannes.jpg
- File:Cathédrale de Vannes.jpg
- File:St-patern.jpg
All those images have been uploaded by User:Toubabmaster. Toubabmaster has been blocked on and off on the fr:wp and as a revenge Toubabmaster marked all the images as I'm not the author of this picture to get them deleted. Most of the images have been deleted but quite a few where in use. As a clue that the images where really done by Toubabmaster and everything was correct can be found here where Toubabmaster tries to get the old maps deleted too (which are all PD-old) arguing that he/she didn't scan them why they should be copyvios. These images deserve a DR even though most of them have been deleted already. --Amada44 talk to me 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The images that still exist were all done with the same camera model, which would justify the assumption that they indeed are the uploaders own work. Could an admin please check the metadata of the deleted images? --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes, they all are (also the deleted ones) from the same camera model. Personally I don't doubt that they are all made by Toubabmaster. Why would Toubabmaster upload images which he/she didn't do AND upload scans of old maps which she/he didn't scan? That would be to much of a coincidence. The question here is, do we grant Toubabmaster the deletion of her/his images or not? Amada44 talk to me 08:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The images (at least the ones I see) are quite good and in use. Images in use for a long time should not be deleted on user request (especially not on user requests with false rationales). Also, the reason he was blocked on frwiki seems to be edit-warring against consensus and has nothing to do with copyright violations or something that would affect commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have undeleted quite a few that everybody can have a look at them. Amada44 talk to me 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, sorry for my bad English. You can look, that i was blocked on fr wiki on may. The problem was (not is) on fr Wiki. I have never try to delete my french article on fr wiki. You can think that i want "a revenge" here but three month after, it is a curious idea. In fact, i take this picture on my computer, but it is not me who have make this pictures. It is possible to know why nobody speak me about reverting my deleting demands? or why Amada44 doesn't notify this page on my talk page? Sorry for the disturd. --Toubabmaster (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have undeleted quite a few that everybody can have a look at them. Amada44 talk to me 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The images (at least the ones I see) are quite good and in use. Images in use for a long time should not be deleted on user request (especially not on user requests with false rationales). Also, the reason he was blocked on frwiki seems to be edit-warring against consensus and has nothing to do with copyright violations or something that would affect commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes, they all are (also the deleted ones) from the same camera model. Personally I don't doubt that they are all made by Toubabmaster. Why would Toubabmaster upload images which he/she didn't do AND upload scans of old maps which she/he didn't scan? That would be to much of a coincidence. The question here is, do we grant Toubabmaster the deletion of her/his images or not? Amada44 talk to me 08:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about your english. It is good enough to understand what you mean which is perfect. Thank you for answering here on this page. My question is: who was it then that took the photographs? Who was it that scanned the maps if it wasn't you? And why where you so persistent in getting the maps deleted, even though people explained to you that scanning an old map doesn't give you the copyright an them? People did speak to you but you where not listening! Just look at this history. You reverted this page 6 times!!!! the first time on the 11. of April so your argument about the three months later is not valid! Amada44 talk to me 07:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is my father who have take the picture and he says me to delete them. If my argument "three month later" is not valid, i don't know what is your argument, because you talk about "revenge" but i try to delete this picture on April, one month before "my problems" on fr wiki. Actually it is the only argument you have to keep this picture, but in fact, you can't say that. Please stay consistent. --Toubabmaster (talk)10:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ohhh great, now you have tagged them all again with copyvio. Now, I am very sorry but I don't believe you. I think you have taken those images and I think we should keep them. Amada44 talk to me 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say keep/restore too. It wouldn't be the first time that someone tries to revoke a free license by pretending the images were copyright violations in the first place, and I don't think we should condone this by giving in to the request. –Tryphon☂ 16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Srongly keep. Toubabmaster have regularly contributed to the French Wikipédia and Commons since October 2007 and February 2008.
Now he has some problems on the French Wikipedia, he wants to delete his pictures.
Without any doubt, reviewing its work on both projects, those pictures are his.
And so, we're not going to delete them, as it granted not revokable license. If really he wants to delete those pictures, it will be possible to him in the future to send a more formal request, with the relevant evidence the photographer isn't him but his father (in such a case, it's the toubabmaster's father, and not the son who is allowed to make such a request, the civil law doesn't have an universal mandate concept for the son to represent his father...). --Dereckson (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) - Srongly keep. Per Dereckson. As we can't prove an obvious copyvio, we must keep his work. Most of the picture are widely used on many projects. Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I restored some of the pictures used in fr:wp. Perhaps would you think that I should wait the end of this request; feel free to go and talk to me on my talk page. Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour, je me permet de vous écrire car une de mes photos est présente sur votre site. Une personne de mon entourage avait mis mes photos sur vos articles et les as retirées, à ma demande. Mais je vois que sur "Arradon" la procédure ne semble pas terminée et l'image figure toujours dans l'article. Serait-il possible de procéder à sa suppression? b.caudal
yahoo.com
- Bonjour,
- S'agit-il de photos mentionnées sur cette page ou d'autres photo ? --Dereckson (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept & restored. Free licenses are irrevocable. Kameraad Pjotr 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that this was first published in NZ. The date of death of the depicted person has no effect on copyright and is not an evidence for publication nor country of origin of this work. Martin H. (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: It is reasonable to consider that it is a NZ image. The source used is from a publication made in Wellington, NZ, in 1958, the photograph was made by a NZ photographic studio and it depicts a person of NZ. If someone wants to speculate that it might have been first published somewhere else than in NZ, some evidence for that would be needed. The date of death of the depicted person could be useful as an indication about the date of creation of the work, when that is relevant, for example when the author is unknown. For this file, the uploader's reasoning was apparently to consider that the author of the photograph is unknown and that therefore the date of death of the depicted person allows the conclusion that the photograph was created before 1960 and that as such it is in the public domain. That would be a good reasoning, if he was correct in considering that the author is unknown. But is he? The question here may be to determine who, legally, is the author of this work. Is it
the person who commissioned the work,the photographer or the photographic studio (S P Andrew Limited)? Thedepicted person (Michael Myers) died in 1950 and thepossible photographer (Stanley Polkinghorne Andrew) died in 1964.If Myers is the commissioning author, then the photograh is in the public domain in NZ since 2001, but maybe not in the U.S. under the URA Act.If Andrew is the author, then the photograph is copyrighted in NZ until 2015. I couldn't find what is the copyright duration in NZ if the author is a corporation. I'm not really risking an answer. I suppose that the file could be deleted by precaution. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)- As far as I understand, the author of the work always is the real author of the work per Copyright Act 1994. Section 5. I.e. Michael Myers could not be the author. But I don't see any reason why Stanley Polkinghorne Andrew authorship could be challenged, even if he is not the author, IMO this photograph falls under presumption of authorship. Trycatch (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct, of course. Even when the person who commissioned the work owns the copyright, he is not the author, and the duration of his copyright (or that of his successors) would be calculated in relation to the life of the author. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per very good analysis by Asclepias. Trycatch (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - becausue NZ copyright say "published or CREATED before 1960. Look this photo like photo of 10 years old dead body?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.29.30 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- As discussed above, it is not considered that the author is unknown. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again Keep - read template better: "For photographs, manuscripts, archives, music scores, maps, paintings, and drawings published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown (case A)" is copyright: photo taken or work published prior to
- January 1, 1960
- this photo MUST BE taken before 1960! Yes, rule of 50 years of protection exist, but (1960+50=2010 !), becausue, this file fallen in the PD. --77.48.29.30 08:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- S. 5 specifies that "the author of a work is the person who creates it". The work was not published anonymously or under a pseudonym. The photograph being credited to "S P Andrew", its author cannot be considered as unknown. So, the condition of the template is still not met. (Assuming the wording of the template is correct. The source of the part of the template that says "photo taken" is unclear. It would be useful to have a more precise reference for it.) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
KEEP look at page:
Title: The History of the Jews in New Zealand
Author: Lazarus Morris Goldman
Publication details: Reed Publishing (NZ) Ltd, 1958, Wellington
Part of: New Zealand Texts Collection
License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand Licence
Use this licence and problems are away... --77.48.29.30 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- NZETC could waive its rights on the scan, but it has no rights on the book itself to transfer. See http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-NZETC-Help.html#licensing Trycatch (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not, image it property of some "Mr. X". Mr. X Can be propertor of right, agency who pay to author and somebody others. And this "X" got right to publication image in book, and at webpages too. Publication under CC-A-SA licence it problem of source page, not of Wikipedia. We are out of problems. If this are copyvio, Wikipedia are out of any duties. --77.48.29.30 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Unlikely, see the licenses limit of liability 2) 'Someone else is responsible' is not the spirit of free content and Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsence. If somebody publishe file under licence compatibilite with commons, we got right to publishe that file here. If you start thinking in this style, you must delete:
Bundesarchiv
Polish president files
Argentina president files
and many files others.
Page "nzetc.org" look very profesional, and we not must be paranoic and do not trust licencing of this page --77.48.29.30 07:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
with all indication that is PD. Author as individual is unknown photographer working for SP Andrew Ltd. If Australian copyright law is an indication than "For companies and other organisations other than government, duration of copyright is generally determined by reference to an individual creator’s lifetime, even if that person never owned copyright (for example, because they created the material as an employee). In particular, there are no copyright duration rules that depend on how long a company lasts." [10]. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Found information about S P Andrew Ltd. --Elekhh (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently S P Andrew Ltd images were donated in 1969 to the Alexander Turnbull Library which is in custody of the w:en:National Library of New Zealand. However only this image of Myers is online in the collection. --Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Found information about S P Andrew Ltd. --Elekhh (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete based on available evidence, does not meet criteria for inclusion on commons. David Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Asclepias. There were concerns raised about this image and they definitely were not cleared. And as Martin H. said, we do not move the responsibility to somebody else. If it is their copyvio, then it is also ours. -- Cecil (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Restored: as per [11]. Yann (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)