Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
-2.JPG){kind=link}
_-5Dec2009.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted content from Google Street View and the Zamora de Hidalgo municipality website. Robinsonsmay (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fast deleted, you even see the google interface. -- Drini 01:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: copyvio, you can even see the google interface
Product shot, likely copyrighted and used in 380+ other places on the web: http://www.tineye.com/search/d2a83f96da72225916ddd191dacc3e269fc24255/?order=desc Ytoyoda (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
undefined TRIOULOGO (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Closed. Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
il bloque mon ordi 74.210.199.203 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Raison fantaisiste ou pas suffisamment documentée s'il y a un bug avéré, que pour ma part je ne reproduis pas...--Jul (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
bad name Tony110886 (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Kit right arm tswpegasus1011h.png -- Common Good (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
undefined Redmonster1088 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Mot goc tuyen quang.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong file name. Duplicate exists (file:Sympetrum sanguineum_THWZ_01.JPG) THWZ (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Sympetrum sanguineum THWZ 01.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad Name Tony110886 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Kit left arm tswpegasus1011h.png
Wrong depiction. According to Siamese flag laws in 1891, 1897, 1899 and 1910, the white elephant must be faced to the flag pole. But the elephant in this image was faced to the fly. Please see image at https://www.fotw.info/flags/th~gov.html and http://www.t-h-a-i-l-a-n-d.org/siamflag/rule.html for comparing this image Xiengyod (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Mass deletion of files added by Sahapon-krit hellokitty
a fictitous flag, does not exist for usage in Antigua and Barbuda. see https://www.fotw.info/flags/ag.html Xiengyod (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Mass deletion of files added by Sahapon-krit hellokitty
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicated to File:Pilot Flag of Thailand (1916).JPG (it just change file format) Xiengyod (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted by Zscout370: Mass deletion of files added by Sahapon-krit hellokitty
undefined Redmonster1088 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information and/or licence. High Contrast (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Powers (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Powers (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://esckaz.com/2005/ire.htm -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of a Brazilian musical band with no notability as voted here pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Kamundongos do Alaska - out of scope Santosga (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.democratas.org.br/default.asp Ednei amaral (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.cmc.pr.gov.br/ass_det.php?not=10329# Ednei amaral (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.ptb.org.br/ Ednei amaral (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.journaids.org/index.php/reporting/reporting_on_hivaids/_introduction_new_ways_of_perceiving_the_health_beat/ Ednei amaral (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.guiasjp.com/opcoes.php?option=604&id_noticia=34471&pubb=0 Ednei amaral (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.cmsjp.com.br/index.php?pagina=vereadores_detalhe&id=1 Ednei amaral (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.cmsjp.com.br/index.php?pagina=vereadores_detalhe&id=15 Ednei amaral (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.cmsjp.com.br/index.php?pagina=vereadores_detalhe&id=2 Ednei amaral (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of any permission allowing the use of this photo. russavia (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Highly likely copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this image is protected by copyright. Truu (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia, possible copyvio, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone again mistook Google as a quarry for free pictures. This was taken from http://www.elektroversand-schmidt.de/images/protec_silikon_psst.jpg Στε φ (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously a television screenshot. No permission for a free use given High Contrast (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. ZooFari 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private image that is not used on any Wikimedia project: Out of scope: encyclopedic value not given High Contrast (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a television screenshot. No permission for a free use given High Contrast (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Looks like a television screenshot. High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. ZooFari 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Image is not used on any other Wikimedia project High Contrast (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 10:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by ZooFari: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OK_-_Daphnis_Olivier_Boelens_-_20_-_Copie_(2).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
License missing; apparently not free due to the globe. ireas :talk: 10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
part of series of images already deleted: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Military_rank_insignia_of_Denmark 220.255.55.229 11:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copied from http://forsvaret.dk/FRK/Gradstegn/Flyvevåbnet/Sergenter/Pages/default.aspx. ZooFari 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
COM:PS#File not legitimately in use: non-educational, no apparent use on any project. --Theornamentalist (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Bad quality. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
a person of no notability; the article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Low quality image; no copyright information; no educational or encyclopaedic purpose Uncle Dick (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Low Resolution and wrong depiction. According to Siamese flag laws in 1891, 1897, 1899 and 1910, the white elephant must be faced to the flag pole. But the elephant in this image was faced to the fly. Please see image at https://www.fotw.info/flags/th~gov.html and http://www.t-h-a-i-l-a-n-d.org/siamflag/rule.html for comparing this image Xiengyod (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source and/or license
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep-below threshold of originality, and copyright paranoia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep +1. What should be copyrightable here? Neither the letters nor the words are. The game idea is also free in the meantime it seems, as the patent on it has expired. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is it too late to merge these?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably not, DR's usually take forever to close... — raeky (talk | edits) 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, folks. Our policy on Board Games is very clear. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Outside of scope, unclear what it is. Simonft (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. It's probably personal art and therefore out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Comment I don't really see where it says that a picture of a Scrabble board is forbidden (but I admit I have read it very quickly). I am actually dubious when I read that : "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Twowings quote means, essentially, that the board itself can be copyrighted, but not the method of play. While you can copyright a particular set of words describing the game rules, that covers only those particular words. Someone could make a new text of the rules that described the rules in different words and it would not be an infringement. This is why there are no proprietary games for an ordinary deck of cards -- there is nothing to prevent someone else from selling the same thing. Most (all?) proprietary games maintain their monopoly by copyright on either the board (Scrabble) or the cards used Uno (card game). Thus, for example, you can play the game Uno with regular playing cards and not infringe, but you cannot copy Uno's special set of cards. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Attribution on image is "Wuhan Transportation Planning Institute". No proof that the uploader holds copyright. Liangent (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
COM:PS#File not legitimately in use: non-educational, no apparent use on any project. --Theornamentalist (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
not used, and File:William Fife Portrait.jpg offers better quality Nuttyrave (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be taken somewhere from internet. Have very small "internet" resolution and it looks like as a copy of postcard... Electron <Talk?> 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:House of Zaslonov Konstantin Sergeevich.jpg Fastboy (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It may be copyrighted under "All rights reserved" per the license on Flickr. --Rockfang (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - This file was tagged for speedy deletion. I disagree with speedy deletion of this file. Per the speedy template, I replaced it with the DR template. This file appears to have come from the person in the image. One reason I think this, is because it is used here (a user subpage on the en wiki). Because of these reasons, I think a full discussion should be used. I am indifferent to whether or not the file gets deleted though.--Rockfang (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Initialge Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The national sides of the Euro coins are copyrighted, the same should apply to the bank notes. Plus, no assertion the Belgium bank allowed this under the CC license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Classic case of yet another user who has been uploading tons of images of money copied from websites. It should be the burden of the uploader to provide the evidence that the image is free. Of course, there is no copyvio when a banknote is evidently PD-old or covered by an explicit verifiable permission for the specific country. When such permission is known to exist for a country, one should be able to find on Commons an available PD template for it. When the image is not free, it should generally be speedy deleted on sight. It would be unproductive to do a deletion request discussion in each case, because users who make that type of copyvios often tend to upload them by the dozens or by the hundreds, and to reupload them again and again under various file names after the deletion decisions. Regular clean-ups of those images must be done. For example, this 1000 Belgian franks banknote image has already been deleted and reuploaded by a different user under a different name. There was no evidence that this banknote image might be free. It does not seem that this situation has changed. The uploader had been requesting permissions to "reproduce images on Wikipedia". Someone explained to him that even if he personally got that type of permission, it was not good for Commons unless the images were made free and the permission was validated. And of course, the CC license claim has nothing to do there and it is even contradictory with the simultaneous DP claim by the user. Fortunately, he stopped those uploads. See his talk page and upload log and this discussion. Many uploads of this type by this user are already deleted, but you can probably still find some that were forgotten and are still around. And you can probably also find lots of similar images, from other uploaders, that are waiting for a clean-up, perhaps not so much of banknotes but especially of national faces of euro coins. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- However the rationale is completely incorrect, this is not a Euro banknote, but an older belgian one in francs. BTW, Euro banknotes have no "national sides", they are all the same! Given that the copyright law of Belgium follows the French pattern, so it has no specific exeptions for government works etc. it is a copyvio and should be deleted. SV1XV (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was tagged with a Euro Coin template for the license, so that is why I thought it was a Euro thing. Hell, that means we can delete it also for a false license. Sorry! User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- However the rationale is completely incorrect, this is not a Euro banknote, but an older belgian one in francs. BTW, Euro banknotes have no "national sides", they are all the same! Given that the copyright law of Belgium follows the French pattern, so it has no specific exeptions for government works etc. it is a copyvio and should be deleted. SV1XV (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=346253057#File:BEL-1000f-anv.jpg){kind=link}
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did you consult Soviet Laws as well? And whether it relates to architectural structures at all?--Avala (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- cf. [2] --Fernrohr (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am still not convinced that this rule stands for these photos of structures built in Soviet Union or before that so I say Keep --Avala (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am still not convinced that this rule stands for these photos of structures built in Soviet Union or before that so I say
- cf. [2] --Fernrohr (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep before 2008 --> Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Situated in Places of Public Resort
Reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge shall be allowed, without the author's consent or payment of royalties, of works of architecture, photography and figurative art permanently located in places of public resort, except where portrayal of the work is the basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge or where portrayal of the work is used for commercial purposes. --Botaurus (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)- ...which is exactly the problem. Frist the portrayal of the building is the basic object of the photo, and second the CC-license at Commons allows commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide more details. What is FOP and why is this the reason for deletion? This photo is my own work. Rdfr (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since there are still IP (intellectual property) rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. You see it here. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok then. What kind of licence should I use? I'm not that good it licences =) 85.89.99.35 08:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC) ps: thanks a lot for help.
- You can only upload the photo on Commons, if you can grant a license allowing commercial use. Since you cannot grant a license allowing commerical use, you cannot upload the photo on Commons. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- In soviet union, where MSU main building was built, there were no private property. As far as I know all photos etc. made in soviet union are in public domain... Am i right? Does it work for architecture? in any way should i reupload it to ru.wiki and remove from here?Rdfr (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Russian laws are applied retroactively to Soviet works, cf. [3]. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- in any way should i reupload it to ru.wiki and remove from here? 85.89.99.35 08:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the photo is illegal in Commons according to Russian law, then it is probably illegal in the Russian Wikipedia according to Russian law. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Если честно - я так и не понял,как обсуждать причину кандидатства на удаление:( По буквам разъяснить никак нельзя?
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Lack of consensus how to interpret Russian copyright law regarding public buildings, see Commons:Deletion_requests/own_photographs_violatoing_COM:FOP. --Iotatau (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- There is now clear consensus in the meantime ([4], [5], [6] are 3 recent deletions for another public building, Moscow State University). --Fernrohr (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please point me to the consensus. Your three links are individual cases of images deleted by one admin. Furthermore my particular image is a documentation/update of the state of the White House less than one year after the August 1991 events. Free use of copyrighted work is permitted in the case of news reporting in the Berne Convention and also Russian law (see Article 1274 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation). According to this article the name(s) of the author(s) must be given, I just added them to the image description. --Iotatau (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The consensus is here and a photo of 1992 is not a news reporting about the events in October 1993 (the shooting of the building was not 1991). If there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, then the uploader (you) cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again this is no new consensus, just pointing to Article 1276 on COM:FOP. The White House played a crucial role in 1991, too, see File:Boris Yeltsin 19 August 1991-1.jpg. In my photo the White House is shown in a similar angle. Visiting a historic site months or even years after a major event is a regular news activity. --Iotatau (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The consensus is here and a photo of 1992 is not a news reporting about the events in October 1993 (the shooting of the building was not 1991). If there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, then the uploader (you) cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please point me to the consensus. Your three links are individual cases of images deleted by one admin. Furthermore my particular image is a documentation/update of the state of the White House less than one year after the August 1991 events. Free use of copyrighted work is permitted in the case of news reporting in the Berne Convention and also Russian law (see Article 1274 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation). According to this article the name(s) of the author(s) must be given, I just added them to the image description. --Iotatau (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - put all the interpretation aside, the building is not even a main object of this photo.--Avala (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's always rich to say that the building named in the title of the image, that takes up most the image, is not a main object of the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no any problem with FOP in this case. Wrong nomination -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain why. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:6795-6799_-_Moscow_-_Moscow_State_University.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Main_building_msu.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Main_building_msu.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Building was designed by Tshetshulin who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
no FOP in Russia Fernrohr (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
no FOP in Russia Fernrohr (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
no FOP in Russia Fernrohr (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- WTF is FOP? And it is not my picture, I only transferred from English Wikipedia. --Allesmüller (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- See here. Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
+ File:Памятник Сочувствие.JPG Monument was designed by Tsigal who was born in 1948. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
-2.JPG){kind=link}
-2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
-2.JPG){kind=link}
- I have seen such images transferred to russian wikipedia by bot Rubinbot II', but do not know how to tell Rubinbot to do so. -- Klaus with K (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the photo is illegal in Commons according to Russian law, then it is probably illegal in the Russian Wikipedia according to Russian law. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is not illegal. The issue is compatibility with the set of licences we allow us on commons. And one can see (example ru:Файл:Stalinian architecture in Moscow (Kudrinskaya Square Building).JPG) that files with FOP issue on commons are bot-transferred to Russian wikipedia. How to invoke the bot?-- Klaus with K (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly think it is illegal: There is no FOP in Russia if the building is the basic object of the photo, OR commerical use ([7]). --Fernrohr (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then it is interesting to find that there is a bot to move them across. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- As "interesting" as claiming that this is not the Eiffel tower at night... (comment unrelated to Kudrinskaya topic). --Fernrohr (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then it is interesting to find that there is a bot to move them across. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly think it is illegal: There is no FOP in Russia if the building is the basic object of the photo, OR commerical use ([7]). --Fernrohr (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is not illegal. The issue is compatibility with the set of licences we allow us on commons. And one can see (example ru:Файл:Stalinian architecture in Moscow (Kudrinskaya Square Building).JPG) that files with FOP issue on commons are bot-transferred to Russian wikipedia. How to invoke the bot?-- Klaus with K (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the photo is illegal in Commons according to Russian law, then it is probably illegal in the Russian Wikipedia according to Russian law. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
-2.JPG){kind=link}
_-5Dec2009.jpg){kind=link}
_-5Dec2009.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The logo *does* meet the threshold of originality, and is therefore NOT public domain ESanchez013 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Norman Forster who was born in 1935. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, this building wasn't designed or built in Russia. It was designed and built in the Soviet Union. Second, is it your intention to delete all photographs of monuments designed and built in the Soviet Union? If so, then this discussion should take place in a more conspicuous place. If not, then do you have some other grounds for wanting to delete this image? Rklawton (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, you find the explanation here. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's for Russia - not the CCCP. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- But it is now applicable. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Says you. Since you've nominated a few hundred images, this discussion is now here. Rklawton (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I found an explicit statement on retroactive copyright of Shchusev here. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong. Your example (not part of the law) lists Shchusev as an example of an architect and identifies him as the designer of the tomb. But it does not state that he holds the copyright for the tomb. He worked for the State. It was a State project. The State holds the copyright. And under Russian law, State-held copyrights expire 70 years after the "publishing" (construction) of the work (in this case, 1930). Heck this is the CCCP we're talking about, back then the State even owned its citizen's corpses - such that families did not have the right to decline autopsies or post-mortem research of any kind even if it violated their religious principles. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the quote: "Other authors on whose works copyright was restored were ...Aleksey Shchusev (died 1949, architect of the Lenin Mausoleum)." Of course all Soviet buildings were by the state, and there was no problem with commercial use either, because there was no private commerce. This doesn't change the fact that after the Soviet Union, the duration of the IP of individual architects was prolonged to 70 years p.m.a. --Fernrohr (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong. Your example (not part of the law) lists Shchusev as an example of an architect and identifies him as the designer of the tomb. But it does not state that he holds the copyright for the tomb. He worked for the State. It was a State project. The State holds the copyright. And under Russian law, State-held copyrights expire 70 years after the "publishing" (construction) of the work (in this case, 1930). Heck this is the CCCP we're talking about, back then the State even owned its citizen's corpses - such that families did not have the right to decline autopsies or post-mortem research of any kind even if it violated their religious principles. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- But it is now applicable. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's for Russia - not the CCCP. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, you find the explanation here. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a street scene.--Avala (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the marking on the building (over the left entry on black stone), the summary by the uploader, the usage in a Wikipedia article, and the category all indicate that it is the Lenin mausoleum on Red Square in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). --Fernrohr (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
merged requests:
Building was designed by architect Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- This is a functional antenna, am I correct? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is a building carrying many antennas and transmitters, with an observation deck and a restaurant on top. --Fernrohr (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Nard - where is the threshold of originality there? This television tower is a functional structure, or not? --High Contrast (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was the highest building on this planet until 1975, therefore we cannot decline architecturial originality. They call it the pride of Soviet engineering, mentioning that "Nikitin’s work embodied the dreams of a whole generation of engineers and designers to become a technical miracle at the time.". --Fernrohr (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, but there is nothing of architecturial originality in this functional antenna. I just think it was the highest antenna not building. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a work of art. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Fernrohr is right - it is an admirable engineering work. Typically the creations of engineers don't carry aesthetic intellectual property rights, see cars, locomotives, rockets. Furthermore it's a newsworthy update of the reconstruction efforts following the devastating fire on the tower and as such permissible according to Art. 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. --Iotatau (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call it a news photo (article 1274), taken 6 years after the fire, and from too far away to see that part of the facade which was impacted by the fire. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Too far away"? Then it can't infringe IP rights. --Iotatau (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You find it here- --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you have pointed me to Art. 1276 before, I have pointed you to Art. 1274 before. To complete the circle I restate your words that the tower is an engineering achievement and that the image has been taken "too far away" to recognize important details. You yourself have refuted the arguments for deleting this image, thank you. --Iotatau (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I reasoned my request with the IP of the architect (Nikitin). The photo is too far away to see the details (that part of the facade which was impacted by the fire) that might qualify as a news image, apart from the timing 6 years after the event (art. 1274). It is not too far away to make the tower, as designed by the architect, not "the basic object of the reproduction" (art. 1276). I don't think we should find here bizarre excuses for copyvios. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You turn the demands upside down: for news photos the quality standards are much lower than for works of art. This image is good for documenting the tower history but it does not "reproduce" Nikitin's architecture. Too many details are lacking for a faithful reproduction. --Iotatau (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I reasoned my request with the IP of the architect (Nikitin). The photo is too far away to see the details (that part of the facade which was impacted by the fire) that might qualify as a news image, apart from the timing 6 years after the event (art. 1274). It is not too far away to make the tower, as designed by the architect, not "the basic object of the reproduction" (art. 1276). I don't think we should find here bizarre excuses for copyvios. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you have pointed me to Art. 1276 before, I have pointed you to Art. 1274 before. To complete the circle I restate your words that the tower is an engineering achievement and that the image has been taken "too far away" to recognize important details. You yourself have refuted the arguments for deleting this image, thank you. --Iotatau (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- You find it here- --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Too far away"? Then it can't infringe IP rights. --Iotatau (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Fernrohr has miscategorized the structure. It is TV tower, not an architecturally unique artwork.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion I think that this antenna and/or TV tower picture also falls under the doctrine of de minimis because the image has been taken too far away to recognize important details. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The photo displays the complete bulding of an architect who died in 1973, which is exactly when FOP would be necessary in order for the uploader to be able to grant a CC-license for commercial use. The building is famous, therefore somehow unique. --Fernrohr (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is famous for its height, not unique architecture.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Restored. Functional building. Beside that, almost everybody above agreed with that. Yann (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Reopened the debate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
DeleteThe arguments made above are, roughly:
- It's not a building -- although primarily built as an antenna tower, it has restaurants, shops, and public spaces, which make it a building. Even User:Yann, when restoring the file, calls it a building. But it doesn't matter. All architecture has a copyright and any large structure is architecture, see see most English language dictionaries including the OED. Would you say that the Eiffel Tower was not architecture?
- It's not a work of art. -- There is no requirement that a copyrighted work be beautiful, or be a work of art. The only requirement is originality -- it must not be a copy of something PD.
- It's not original. -- Please. The shape, the various detailing, including the multi-legged base (see File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG) and the several bulges for restaurants, shops, and services make it unique and original.
- "Cars, locomotives, rockets" and other engineering works don't have copyrights, so this shouldn't. -- That argument would have been excellent a hundred years ago. Architecture is a relatively recent addition to the list of things covered by copyright, but it is explicitly covered now in most countries, including the USA and Russia. Cars, locomotives, and rockets aren't.
- It is a functional structure, therefore not covered by copyright. -- Most architecture has one specific function. Would you argue that the Vehicle Assembly Building is not architecture? Or the John Hancock Tower. The former's only function is putting together Space Shuttles. The latter's function is an office building. There is nothing in the law that says that a structure that functions as an office building is covered by copyright, but a structure that functions as an antenna tower is not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG-1){kind=link}
Keep. As NVO wrote on Fernrohr's talk page: A policy is in place but there's no commitment. None. [...] practically anything built in the Union fails COM:FOP in this or that way. It's a five-digit mass of photos. Current "consensus" is to disregard COM:FOP in this case: no one really cares about legalese crap fabricated in Russia or North Korea. [...] Can this simple statement lead to a summary deletion of all photography in the Union-related categories? (accentuation by me) - yes, it can, if you go ahead deleting stuff like this, resulting in Wikimedia Commons becoming virtually useless for illustrating articles about Russia and/or or the Soviet Union (which occupied 1/6 of the Earth's land area). Change this policy right now because of common sense and the nullo actore, nullus iudex principle, and stop deletions at least until this point is clarified! And BTW, we do not need administrators implementing "commons policies" acting like robots not considering any issues around, like the mentioned above... --SibFreak (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep and do something!
Firstly, according to [8], it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut "no" to non-commercial use like Commons.
Secondly, this sort of discussion is spectacularly fruitless. Why has nobody bothered to find a practical rather than a theoretical answer to the question of whether to delete or keep this photo? There has to be a middle ground between "keeping it and hoping nothing bad is going to happen" and "deleting it in anticipatory obedience".
You'll easily find two official websites affiliated with the tower: it is a member of the World Federation of Great Towers, and it even has its own website [9]. Both sites feature a good few photos of the tower. And the tower's website lists contacts for their Advertising and Press department, as well as their Legal department. Now there's a thought...
So why exactly are we debating here whether it's okay to use this photo on Commons when it's possible to actually ask somebody with at least some authority with regard to the tower? To spell it out: Wouldn't it be possible to ask the tower people whether a) the photo is ok to be used, or whether they can b) provide a substitute? It might be best to get somebody with a knowledge of Russian to do this, though. In any case, I don't want to believe that the great people of Wikimediaworld can't get this done practically and instead prefer to engage in discussions that only have theoretical value and little bearing on the real world. --afromme 12:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Commons is not "non-commercial use" -- we require images to be free for commercial use. In fact all of my images that have been taken from Commons for use elsewhere have been for commercial use.
- It is not "the tower people" that need to give permission, it is the architect or his heirs. Without a license from the architect, there is no possible substitute -- the problem is not this image, it is that any image of the tower infringes the architect's copyright.
- We in fact, as a matter of firm, established policy, "delet[e] in anticipatory obedience". We are "a database of 7,465,085 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". This, the subhead from our main page, says "freely usable", not "freely usable as long as no one objects".
- We therefore do not do what we would like to do -- all of us would like to keep FOP problem images like this one, we do what Russian law and our firm policy requires us to do, which is to delete in this case. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per Jameslwoodward as this is a building by the renowned Russian architect Nikolai Nikitin which is naturally copyrighted. Please notice that, for example, the arrangement and design of the arcs and the bull's eye-windows which are arranged in an interesting pattern at the bottom (to be seen at File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG) are clearly a copyrighted work of architecture which is not a strict consequence of its function. Likewise, the arrangement of the tower with its sequence of sections and lighting as very well demonstrated by File:Ostankino tower.jpg and File:Ostankino 2.jpg indicate that we have a magnificent piece of architecture where originality is given. As it is well known, we require per COM:L and per this resolution of the WMF that all media at Commons must be free for commercial use. Unfortunately, the very strict legislation in Russia does not extend FOP to commercial use with the result that we cannot keep these images. Other than Wikimedia Commons, individual projects are free to take advantage of the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) (as, for example, en-wp) or to apply local law (as, for example, de-wp) and to continue to use these images by moving them to the individual projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think this part of the tower qualifies for copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
DW bottle is copyrightable Huib talk Abigor @ meta 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Specifically what part of the bottle? Looks like standard fonts and simple geometric shapes to me, none of which is copyrightable. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, very simple design and arrangement, only fonts and geometric shapes; most likely ineligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 06:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think this part of the tower qualifies for copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think this part of the tower qualifies for copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think this part of the tower qualifies for copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--AVRS (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think this part of the tower qualifies for copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Ok! Please, give a link to the original. Where can we see a photo of Nikitkin of which you speak? HeatSink
2. On the photo we can see construction cranes, which appeared after a fire in 2000. HeatSink
3. Do you have the original RAW image parts that make up this panorama picture? HeatSink
- Nikitin is here and no, he did not make the photo. He made the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean this photo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg) This is totally different angles...--HeatSink (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, i mean the building, which is intellectual property of the architect until 1973+70, so you cannot grant a CC-license. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The license was assigned to the photo. As in this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg and many others...--HeatSink (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which part of the license violated? Please, give a link.--HeatSink (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot grant a license for a photo of something, the IP rights of which belong to somebody else (the architect). --Fernrohr (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to part of the license.--HeatSink (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to document, that confirms IP rights.--HeatSink (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The license you used on 10 February 2007 when uploading, is this (without excluding professional usage of the photo), and the FOP is explained here. Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes, and you have not. --Fernrohr (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes" - please, confirm his commercial right, give a link to document.
- He has, because he invented it. The law is quoted in my last answer, article 1276. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article 1276 is not document, which proving ownership.--HeatSink (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has, because he invented it. The law is quoted in my last answer, article 1276. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes" - please, confirm his commercial right, give a link to document.
- The license you used on 10 February 2007 when uploading, is this (without excluding professional usage of the photo), and the FOP is explained here. Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes, and you have not. --Fernrohr (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to part of the license...--HeatSink (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- What license? --Fernrohr (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot grant a license for a photo of something, the IP rights of which belong to somebody else (the architect). --Fernrohr (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, i mean the building, which is intellectual property of the architect until 1973+70, so you cannot grant a CC-license. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean this photo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg) This is totally different angles...--HeatSink (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reopened. There wasn’t any actual discussion here. The bottom part of the tower is not visible, and I don’t think anything else is any more than a functional work.
- Remalfermita. Ĉi tie okazis nenia efektiva diskuto. La bazo de la turo ne videblas, kaj mi pensas, ke la cetero probable estas nur necesa rezulto de laŭutilcela konstruo.
--AVRS (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
hm... I am know history. But what is "FOP", and why delete request? Shushlev (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot grant a CC-license for a photo of a building which is copyrighted. --Fernrohr (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why not???? CC-licence apply freedom non-commercial use of this photo. And Russian Civil code says ".....be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties....". CC-license completely confirms these words. Shushlev (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because your CC-license also gave right for commercial use, and you don't have this right. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I will be use freedome licence, then all people, fore example you, may use this photo for commercial. Then all what You said is absurd Shushlev (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nikitin (the architect) has this right of commercial usage of images of his work, and you have not. So you cannot give such a license whatsoever. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I will be use freedome licence, then all people, fore example you, may use this photo for commercial. Then all what You said is absurd Shushlev (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because your CC-license also gave right for commercial use, and you don't have this right. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why not???? CC-licence apply freedom non-commercial use of this photo. And Russian Civil code says ".....be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties....". CC-license completely confirms these words. Shushlev (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - you cannot use Russian law here, we need to see what the Soviet law said about the FOP and copyright expiration.--Avala (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously and since the USSR is no longer existing, for the protection now in Russia, the Russian law is applicable. --Fernrohr (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Russia - the full assignee of the USSRShushlev (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just a TV tower. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- ..until 1975, the highest building on this planet. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Was informed by an MTA employee that taking pictures of the platform was against rules. Onore Baka Sama (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
- The employee was probably wrong - there are very few public places in the USA which prohibit photography, see the First Amendment.
- Even if it is true, it's not a problem that concerns us.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
----
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not 20th century architecture. The style of this building cannot be protected by someone who died in 1949, since this is renaissance style. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- There were no subways in renaissance, and maybe the originality is to apply what you call renaissance style to the facade a 20th century utilitarian buidling. But the IP rights of the architect exist independent on whether you find his work banal or not. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. Ideas are not copyrightable. And therefore, just having the idea of building a subway station that looks like an ancient temple is not enough to create copyright IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The idea might not be copyrightable, the execution certainly is. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- There were no subways in renaissance, and maybe the originality is to apply what you call renaissance style to the facade a 20th century utilitarian buidling. But the IP rights of the architect exist independent on whether you find his work banal or not. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a street scene.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the markings on the building, the summary by the uploader, the usage in 3 Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the building of Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). --Fernrohr (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a street scene.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. An ordinary street scene. Stop vamdalism. --Pauk (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the markings on the building, the summary by the uploader, the usage in a Wikipedia article, and the categories all indicate that it is the building of Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). --Fernrohr (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not 20th century architecture. The style of this building cannot be protected by someone who died in 1949, since this is renaissance style. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- There were no subways in renaissance, and maybe the originality is to apply what you call renaissance style to the facade a 20th century utilitarian buidling. But the IP rights of the architect exist independent on whether you find his work banal or not. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system life with passengers, workmen, escalators, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a buidling, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the summary of the uploader, the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a buidling, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system with people, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the labeling at the source ([10]), the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system with people, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you see more "trains" on this photo than building, then you are probably wrong. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo of a station but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the summary by the uploader, the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the Flickr author cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo of a station but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you see more "trains" on this photo than building, then you are probably wrong. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Too blurred, unused, out of COM:SCOPE A.Savin 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system with people, escalators, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo of a station but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the labeling at the source ([11]), the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo of a station but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system with people, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the summary of the uploader, the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You made a mass listing of metro train stations. Some will have trains, some will have people, some will have escalators but what they all have in common is that they are photos of a life scene from a commuter life in Moscow and not some lone building photo that would make it a FOP violation as the Russian FOP only forbids such photos and not photos like this one.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you no longer see trains. If you keep trying, you will discover the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blatantly wrong: It is a building, and there are no trains. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What is the main object here? I would say people and escalators not concrete...--Avala (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Escalators are obviously part of the building and part of the architect's decisions. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is a life scene, not a photo of a building. Escalators on stations are uniform at all stations with no creativity involved, they are not subject to copyright.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Escalators are obviously part of the building and part of the architect's decisions. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Fernrohr don't know Russian Laws, he/she only heard about non-FOP. --Pauk (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The law is here. If there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, then the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a building photo but a public space where the photo portrays a scene in the Moscow transportation system life with passengers, workmen, escalators, trains etc.--Avala (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you see more "trains" on this photo than building, then you are probably wrong. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the photo itself, also the file name, the summary of the uploader, the usage in Wikipedia articles, and the categories all indicate that it is the Komsomolskaya metro station in Moscow (architect Alexey Shchusev 1873-1949). Since there are still IP rights pertaining to the architect, the uploader cannot grant a CC-license allowing commercial use. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- No trains on this particular photo but still it is not a photo of a building, it is a photo of a scene of a life in Moscow, as you can see there are people and this photo portrays their life in Moscow, the way they commute, and not just the station itself.--Avala (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you see more "trains" on this photo than building, then you are probably wrong. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
photo of a Brazilian writer with no notability/vanity as voted here pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Márcio Américo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Hm... he was apparently not notable enough to be kept at pt-wp (but his notability was just measured by Google hits and just voted on without any insightful comments). On the other hand, we can have the bar somewhat lower at Commons for people with potential. So far, he has published in 1999 a book with poems (Preciso dar um jeito na vida) and another book in 2003 (Meninos de Kichute, ISBN 8598015032). In addition, he is also not just mentioned by blogs (as claimed by the deletion request at pt-wp) but also by journals like Cult in its issue 121 where he is refered to as author of the book Meninos de Kichute and where, if I understand it correctly, a collaborative work with the Brazilian film director Lucas Amberg is indicated. Even if all this does not yet sum up to notability according to the criteria of our projects, Márcio Américo has certainly the potential for this if he continues to publish books. Given this, we should keep this photograph even if it is unused for now. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per AFBorchert. Trycatch (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
a host of problems: it's a low-quality photo with no source information, questionable permissions and not in scope for Commons Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of an orchestra conductor with no notability as decided here es:Massimo Gualtieri - out of scope; please also delete the following redirect to this image File:Massimogualtieri.jpg Santosga (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
----
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FoP in Russia. 84.62.215.188 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Files upload by user Truu
[edit]Massive upload of copyvio images (some of then are promotional (see File:Grupo Desejos 2007.jpg and File:MileyCyrusBillboad.jpg, and other until have watermarks) --Béria Lima Msg 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not upload image File:MileyCyrusBillboad.jpg, you're wrong. Truu (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem with File:Panoramica desde o parque Eugenio Granell - 01.jpg? It hasn't been uploaded by Truu, it was uploaded by me. Truu simply confirmed that the license of the image (that comes from Flicker) is right.Xosema (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The bot Lucia Bot either delete all the images I've edited so far. Truu (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - This file was tagged by the nominator's bot with this deletion request. It wasn't uploaded by Truu. I highly suggest that the closing admin check each file, and verify the correct uploader. Also, in this request, it is not stated where the files are from. That would help with determining whether or not any of them actually are violations or not.--Rockfang (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I just checked some random pictures the Lucia Bot (btw. this bot is missing the bot flag!) nominated for deletion as a "copyvio be user Truu", but none of them was uploaded by Truu. Therefore I blocked the bot for one week, that should be sufficient to clearify what went wrong! Hmmm, is there a possibility to undo all his nominations at once? axpdeHello! 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would hope that the bot operator would clean up any mistaggings if not done already. This is mentioned in the bot policy as well.--Rockfang (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, if I understand rightly, this nomination is apparently based on a misunderstanding and excaserbated (I think I spelled that wrongly, but you get the point) by a malfunctioning bot. When properly attributed files from Flickr with an obviously free license are marked as copyvios because of who edited them, we have a problematic nomination. If any files are deleted, they should only be deleted as a result of a new nomination. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't get it. Single bad upload (File:Grupo Desejos 2007.jpg) it's not a reason to remove all contribution by the user. Delete File:Grupo Desejos 2007.jpg of course. Trycatch (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment If anyone wants to see the album of these photos, he's here. Truu (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Needs a new nomination if any are, in fact, a problem. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
undefined� 208.54.83.56 13:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not understand "undefined�". It is an old lithograph, so it would be PD-Old in any case, but in this case the photograph was taken by our uploader. If there is some other reason we should delete this, please tell us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. "undefined�"?? Not a valid reason. Rocket000 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:DW and this in France (no COM:FOP#France) Obelix (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
- Yes, but things do go out of copyright in France. When was this window made, and by who? It looks believably like piece of Victorian glasswork. It's not particularly hard to find out the provenance of stained glass, if one speaks the language; a phone call or letter to the church in question would settle this unambiguously. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I live in Sweden and can't speak French myself, however I do feel that the picture uploader must be able to verify that the picture does not brake the copy right laws. If the picture uploader can't verify it then the picture should be deleted.Obelix (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment I apologize for reporting the image (picture) for deletion too soon. If it's really so old that the copyrights have expired perhaps you could find a source confirming that? Obelix (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
- It's fine to nominate it; deletion requests are often the best way to flag an image up to be researched. I don't speak French, however, and I suspect the best sources would be local - nowadays, every church has a leaflet about its stained glass - so I suspect I must pass to someone else to find out; but I think that making the attempt to find out should happen before deletion, as there's a pretty good chance this is fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it brings me to search on the subject, I found this about the church. And I learned from User:AFBorchert to look for a signature. There is one: Hennau; Jean Hennau à Tarbes is on the web and I have send him an e-mail, demanding further information and permission. I got confirmation that the e-mail was send. Réussi. Votre email a bien été envoyé àVitrail A N Restauration Hennau. Now we must wait for an answer. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS. I asked also for File:Estialesq (Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail le Christ crucifié.JPG
- Yes, it brings me to search on the subject, I found this about the church. And I learned from User:AFBorchert to look for a signature. There is one: Hennau; Jean Hennau à Tarbes is on the web and I have send him an e-mail, demanding further information and permission. I got confirmation that the e-mail was send. Réussi. Votre email a bien été envoyé àVitrail A N Restauration Hennau. Now we must wait for an answer. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Problem mail-adress: I got this message, shortened:
- It's fine to nominate it; deletion requests are often the best way to flag an image up to be researched. I don't speak French, however, and I suspect the best sources would be local - nowadays, every church has a leaflet about its stained glass - so I suspect I must pass to someone else to find out; but I think that making the attempt to find out should happen before deletion, as there's a pretty good chance this is fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
_vitrail_le_Christ_crucifi%C3%A9.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HotFrog - Requête pour Vitrail A N Restauration Hennau [1214966] Verzonden: 14-8-2010 11:11 De volgende geadresseerde(n) zijn niet bereikt: n.hennau@wanadoo.fr op 14-8-2010 11:11 <177217-WEBP01.dfw.intensive.int #5.1.1 smtp;550 5.1.1 <n.hennau@wanadoo.fr>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown>. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-2010-08-14T10:08:00.000Z-File:Estialesq_(Pyr-Atl,_Fr)_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
- I phoned Jean Hennau today, we are going to exchange e-mails for having a permission "written on mail".--Havang(nl) (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
delete- no reply from artist. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
-2010-08-21T07:28:00.000Z-File:Estialesq_(Pyr-Atl,_Fr)_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Difficult to understand how Adam Cuerden could say that this modern work "looks believably like piece of Victorian glasswork." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we no freedom of panorama in France and as a permission is unfortunately missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
_vitrail_vierge_et_enfant.JPG){kind=link}
undefined 95.74.152.84 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep I don't understand this DR. The work is PD-old, so it is not a copyvio. If there is another reason for deletion, please explain. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Blacklake (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Building was designed by Posokhin who died in 1989. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just a photograph of the street, Kudrinskaya Square Building fits de minimis. Trycatch (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch. --Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Suppose, it satisfies de minimis rule. Blacklake (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- After the second look, I see the problem unrelated to FOP, there is no own work claim, there is an external site in the "source" field, and no evidence of permission. I've asked the uploader about this in ru-wiki, but he is not very active... Trycatch (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential licensing information, actually. Blacklake (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scrabble board in play.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment did you check the permission? Multichill (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is it a highly reliable release from Mattel/Hasbro, Inc., i.e. from a lawyer of theirs or from their official e-mails? Otherwise it's irrelevant to the discussion of being a derivative work. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume that's a no. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- So your saying it is directly from Mattel/Hasbro, Inc.? — raeky (talk | edits) 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Multichill (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, if they give us the permission to use this, we can probably even more assume that the others (showing the old board) are ok, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I find this interesting, what exactly is the wording they used to release this image? PaterMcFly could be right, we may even be able to use English versions of their box art... — raeky (talk | edits) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, if they give us the permission to use this, we can probably even more assume that the others (showing the old board) are ok, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume that's a no. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is it a highly reliable release from Mattel/Hasbro, Inc., i.e. from a lawyer of theirs or from their official e-mails? Otherwise it's irrelevant to the discussion of being a derivative work. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I wanted to check the permission but I think it is in some queue I do not have acces to. Perhaps it should be moved to the Commons queue. --MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, there seems to be permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This photograph was not taken by me, but by a friend using my camera. Please forgive my mistake. Wolfgangus Mozart (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep I am reluctant to delete an image that is in use for this reason. From time to time we have uploaders who think better of it and would like to withdraw their perpetual license. Saying "my friend took it" would be an easy way to accomplish that. Note that I am not in any way suggesting that this is true in this case -- User:Wolfgangus Mozart has given us a lot of useful work and no reason to disbelieve him or her. But, I say "keep", because I don't like the precedent. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete I don't want to help set a precedent either, but if what he says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) we shouldn't keep a file that hasn't been freely licensed. Rocket000 (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work: scan of Belarus Encyclopedia. I speedily deleted as copyvio several other scans by this user, but not sure whether this can qualify as {{PD-trivial}} Blacklake (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Knowledge in russian would be helpful here. Looks like a list of names or something to me. That would really be trivial. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's Belarusian actually, but it's indeed the title and list of members of editorial board. --Blacklake (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete OK, probably not a copyvio, but it is probably out of scope. We don't generally keep images of lists. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't really think it is out of scope, if it is kept, I will add the image to be:Беларуская Энцыклапедыя. --Blacklake (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
cadre noir en haut, pas de cadrage Parent Géry (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Comment The black at the top is not itself a reason to delete. It does raise the question, though, of the source of this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Machine translated into French, highly incorrect grammatically, no encyclopedic value. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Je ne parle pas parfaitement le français. Tout indigène peut corriger ce problème, il est nécessaire de l'enlever. Je vous suggère de mettre une nouvelle version corrigée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reconnu les erreurs parce que vous pouvez corriger ou l'améliorer. Supprimer une très radicale et hâtive --The Photographer (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutral It is easy to modify the text: just open the svg source file and edit. But it might be better to start out from the original version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, better versions can be uploaded over this one. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not want this image deleted, but it was tagged "speedy" and this is the only way to do this properly. This is not a copyrighted image, shisa by the thousands adorn everything in Okinawa prefecture, much like tikis in Hawaii and pyramids in Cairo.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (Note File:Shisa_face.svg is also directly linked to this DR as a direct SVG version of the artwork in question) The 2d artwork on the sign most likely was created by someone and used to create the sign. The artistic creation of that 2d artwork would afford it copyright protection. Without direct evidence that 2d artwork isn't copyrighted we have to assume it is. Thus the picture of the sign, and then creation of a SVG exact duplicate of the artwork, is a copyright violation. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Between your eagerness to get this deleted without community consensus (and then accusing me of "edit warring" because of my insistence to go through the proper process) and such questionable uploads of yours such as File:Finpecia from India is Cheap Propecia.jpg (both as something clearly "created by someone"-the basis for your claim-and the blatant advertisement in the name you chose), I would submit that you are not qualified singlehandedly to determine what is copyrighted and what is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy is the proper process for copyright violations that are profoundly blatant as this is, not DR. Are you saying your not allowed to upload works by someone else, lol? The filename is the title of the image on Flickr and was automatically chosen by the script that I used to upload it, don't like it {{Rename}} it. And it's _not_ a copyright violation, and the admin that initially deleted (and I had it undeleted) and then the admin that deleted it nominated it for a DR, is an EXTREME copyright paranoid, I'm very very mild. There is nothing that is copyright-able on that image you linked too of mine, theres trademarks and simple fonts and geometric shapes, nothing eligible for copyright protection. I accused you of edit warring, well the potential of starting it, because of your refusal to accept a speedy tag then the very blunt attack of my revert of your change from the speedy to {{Delete}} since speedy is the proper tag for this image. Of my >5,000 edits here on commons, and MANY uploads, as I said below, my track record speaks for it's self. Theres no need to try to impeach your character here, a quick glance at your talk page is enough to tell the story. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats probably pointy enough to be warnable and punishable. I think my track record here at Commons speaks for itself. This image is a copyright violation. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Between your eagerness to get this deleted without community consensus (and then accusing me of "edit warring" because of my insistence to go through the proper process) and such questionable uploads of yours such as File:Finpecia from India is Cheap Propecia.jpg (both as something clearly "created by someone"-the basis for your claim-and the blatant advertisement in the name you chose), I would submit that you are not qualified singlehandedly to determine what is copyrighted and what is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, a threat. Something I said is worse than you impugning not one but two admins? And how do you propose to "punish" me? You're a piece of work.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No threat, just acknowledging that you was dangerously close to breaking en:WP:AGF and en:WP:CIVIL by your attempt to dig up "Evidence" to impugn my character. I fail to see what admins I've impugned. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not so fast. The Ryukyuan shisa in its present form dates back to at least the 15th century, and the convenience store logo in question is nothing but a faithful 2D rendering of the archetype -- hardly an act of creativity. (Compare with eg. numerous cartoon variants of the shisa, which are clearly creative and copyrightable.) And if the original is not copyrightable, neither does taking a picture of it nor tracing it into an SVG change that. Jpatokal (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The link to the archetype 3d version of this that this is a exact 2d representation? I think translating a 3d carving/statue into a 2d vector art is an act of creativity. I'm quite sure that translation carries with it copyright status. Any case-law, legal proof or established policy here that to backup that assertion? — raeky (talk | edits) 13:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Theres a ton of pictures of Shisa but I don't see any ancient statues/carvings that this 2d art could be considered an accurate faithful reproduction of, and again, this is hardly a photograph of a statue, it required the creative expertise and skill of a 2d artist to create, so I'm pretty sure it carries a copyright even if it's very close to a 3d statue/carving. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not so fast. The Ryukyuan shisa in its present form dates back to at least the 15th century, and the convenience store logo in question is nothing but a faithful 2D rendering of the archetype -- hardly an act of creativity. (Compare with eg. numerous cartoon variants of the shisa, which are clearly creative and copyrightable.) And if the original is not copyrightable, neither does taking a picture of it nor tracing it into an SVG change that. Jpatokal (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- No threat, just acknowledging that you was dangerously close to breaking en:WP:AGF and en:WP:CIVIL by your attempt to dig up "Evidence" to impugn my character. I fail to see what admins I've impugned. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even the most exact copy like a photograph would still have copyright. You'd have to show older identical 2D representations here. I wouldn't be surprised to see this was a copy of older work, but a very quick glance through Google Images shows nothing appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Prosfilaes's assessment here. Though the basic design of Shisa (and, no doubt, a massive number of Shisa) is (are) in the public domain, someone could very easily claim copyright on this image. Demonstration that this 2D design existed hundreds of years ago, which is possible, would solve the issue. Compare- though Michelangelo's David is in the public domain, I could take a load of photographs of it, then not allow anyone else to use them. Equally, it's possible that this design is a recent one. Japanese copyright law does not allow full freedom of panorama for this sort of thing, so unless we can prove that the design is public domain, it's going to need to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This RfD page is linked from two different images (from File:Convenience_store_Shisa_in_Isigaki_island_Japan.jpg and from File:Shisa face.svg), I think two different issues are mistreated as one. First issue is about original Flickr image. This original Flickr image is in some aspect similar to Category:Restaurant signs, Category:Signs and so on. And Second is about 2D svg extracted from first image (that's very nice. I like it. but problem is not the quality...). Shisa itself is very old historical icon of Ryuku(name of series of islands locate in south-west of Japan). But at the same time, this image itself is showed in signboard of small shop in Ishigaki, Okinawa. This looks difficult case. I think first is OK but second is not OK. --Was a bee (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If a restaurant sign contains a copyrighted element and you take a picture of just that sign you're creating a derivative work which is against our policies. Some of the pictures in Category:Restaurant signs probably violate COM:DW. For example File:Jonrevs kfc sign with mods.JPG the Colonel Sanders art looks like it was in use in the early 50's which means its probably still under copyright, so that specific image is a derivative work, and needs deleted. Same principle here, if the SVG version of this artwork you think is not OK, then the photograph of the artwork is also not OK by the policy at COM:DW. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you think so, I do not deny it:>. But there are many such images. Maybe hundreds of thousand. Almost every photo in Category:Times Square, Akihabara must be fixed or deleted. --Was a bee (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just means we have a lot of work to do to clean things up. A picture of a street like Times Square isn't an issue, so long as your not solely focused on one copyrighted image, de minimis applies. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. If your logic is adopted, it looks that firstly you have to request for deletion about some of your uploaded images(File:Tylenol bottle closeup crop.jpg). Your saying means such things? By the way, Mushroom and nature photos are very impressive. I like it. :> --Was a bee (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats a different matter entirely, the Tylenol logo isn't copyrighted just trademarked. Simple geometric shapes and fonts can't be copyrighted. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I think issue is not the extraction of small part or portion from such s label or signs but a extraction of whole part or portion of such a label or signs. Other example is, sorry, File:Jeff Pasek - Portrait of an Artist.jpg. Extracting his painting from this photo and selling it on eBay may be not OK. So How and Where should we set the borderline, That is the problem, I think. --Was a bee (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats where the policies COM:DW and COM:DM come into play. The focus of that picture is the artist, a portrait of him in his studio with some of his artwork around him. If you was to take that picture and crop one of the paintings then you'd be in violation of those two policies. But as a whole the focus of the picture isn't the paintings but the artist so the whole picture is fine. The key thing here is what is the primary focus/subject of the picture. Is it something vague like a storefront or street that just so happens to include a copyrighted element, or is it zoomed in and just that copyrighted element. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Focus of the picture. Yes, that would be good criteria. If so these should be deleted. But already pointed out sometimes at above, I am not confident either about where the original image of this sign comes from. To say creativity. Because this design is typical representation of shisa. Anyway trademark problem resides. This design is on small shop's signboard (although this image may not be registered). So deletion would be nice answer. Thanks:>--Was a bee (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats where the policies COM:DW and COM:DM come into play. The focus of that picture is the artist, a portrait of him in his studio with some of his artwork around him. If you was to take that picture and crop one of the paintings then you'd be in violation of those two policies. But as a whole the focus of the picture isn't the paintings but the artist so the whole picture is fine. The key thing here is what is the primary focus/subject of the picture. Is it something vague like a storefront or street that just so happens to include a copyrighted element, or is it zoomed in and just that copyrighted element. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I think issue is not the extraction of small part or portion from such s label or signs but a extraction of whole part or portion of such a label or signs. Other example is, sorry, File:Jeff Pasek - Portrait of an Artist.jpg. Extracting his painting from this photo and selling it on eBay may be not OK. So How and Where should we set the borderline, That is the problem, I think. --Was a bee (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats a different matter entirely, the Tylenol logo isn't copyrighted just trademarked. Simple geometric shapes and fonts can't be copyrighted. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. If your logic is adopted, it looks that firstly you have to request for deletion about some of your uploaded images(File:Tylenol bottle closeup crop.jpg). Your saying means such things? By the way, Mushroom and nature photos are very impressive. I like it. :> --Was a bee (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just means we have a lot of work to do to clean things up. A picture of a street like Times Square isn't an issue, so long as your not solely focused on one copyrighted image, de minimis applies. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you think so, I do not deny it:>. But there are many such images. Maybe hundreds of thousand. Almost every photo in Category:Times Square, Akihabara must be fixed or deleted. --Was a bee (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If a restaurant sign contains a copyrighted element and you take a picture of just that sign you're creating a derivative work which is against our policies. Some of the pictures in Category:Restaurant signs probably violate COM:DW. For example File:Jonrevs kfc sign with mods.JPG the Colonel Sanders art looks like it was in use in the early 50's which means its probably still under copyright, so that specific image is a derivative work, and needs deleted. Same principle here, if the SVG version of this artwork you think is not OK, then the photograph of the artwork is also not OK by the policy at COM:DW. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looking for a usable PD image tonight, I found this same artwork as PD clipart at http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.okinawankarateandkobudoinstitute.com/images/shisa-button.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.okinawankarateandkobudoinstitute.com/okinawan_clipart.htm&usg=__Nmd7tVcpQ2PtLxDcgQRkVPPX7vc=&h=53&w=57&sz=1&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SkoiaX8LYRx3NM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=57&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshisa%2Bclipart%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D549%26as_st%3Dy%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=117&vpy=301&dur=15&hovh=53&hovw=57&tx=112&ty=18&ei=xmujTKvWL42AvgOV7LGlAw&oei=xmujTKvWL42AvgOV7LGlAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see three possibilities, the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is that it could genuinely be an PD-Old work that both of those have independently derived from, the bad is that it could be a black and white small-scale rendering of our very SVG, and the ugly is that it could be something copyrighted by the strict letter of the law that has leaked into the public consciousness and is now being used extensively without license. Your site unfortunately is a collection of stuff from miscellaneous sources, so that doesn't help a lot. Maybe we all source back to some 1980s package of clipart or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this "Okinawa Shisa Travelogue" says "At present, the lion-dog on Houseibashi Bridge, constructed in 1498 at Enkakuji Temple, is believed to be the oldest on record in Okinawa." — Jeff G. ツ 05:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- So? We aren't arguing that the lion-dog, like the dragon, doesn't date back a long ways as a cultural icon. We're arguing that this particular rendition of the lion-dog is modern, just like many renditions of the dragon.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Again files from archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr
[edit]See the search, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Borloo- Fillon - Lagarde Une 500.jpg.
The images come from various creators, most images are not free for commercial reuse and should be deleted. I dont identified them individually because ALL images are not licensed for modification and so non of the images is free. This is the deletion request number X, hopefully we can finally resolve this.
- Imagelist
- All files from archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr (in case I overlooked some) except files that are public domain for a valid reason (creator died 70 years ago or the image is described as an anonymous work by a reliable publication and possible search confirms this)
- File:Sarkozy raffarin metro.jpg
- File:AlainProstGP.jpg
- File:Jean francois lamour.jpg
- File:Hubert falco.jpg
- File:Pinay.jpg
- File:Boutih.jpg
- File:NicoleFontaine.jpg
- File:Bouchard1.jpg
- File:NicoleAmeline.jpg
- File:TokiaSaïfi.jpg
- File:Platini, 1998.jpg
- File:GENTOT-JOSPIN.jpg
- File:Edgarfaure.jpg
- File:LouisBesson.jpg
- File:Charrest.jpg
- File:Dominique villepin.jpg
- File:Pierre bedier.jpg
- File:Sarkozy raffarin police1.jpg
- File:Elisabeth guigou.jpg
- File:BuffetJospin.jpg
- File:Borloo chirac.jpg
- File:Stade de France, Semi-final of 1998 FIFA World Cup.jpg
- File:Francis mer1.jpg
- File:Sarkozy raffarin police2.jpg
- File:Landry.jpg
- File:JupéJospin.jpg
- File:Dominique voynet.jpg
- File:RaffarinCharest.jpg
- File:GagnonTremblayBertrand.jpg
- File:BrigitteGirardin.jpg
- File:ChrétienJospin.jpg
- File:JeanChrétien.jpg
- File:Fabius jospin.jpg
- File:LandryJospin.jpg
- File:JospinBoutih.jpg
- File:Gilles derobien5.jpg
- File:Flandin.jpg
- File:Bouchard5.jpg
- File:HenriPlagnol.jpg
- File:FrançoisLoos.jpg
- File:RaffarinCharest2.jpg
- File:DominiqueBussereau.jpg
- File:Guy Roux, Lionel Jospin.jpg
- File:Platini.jpg
- File:Michel Platini, Lionel Jospin, 1998.jpg
- File:CNIL-JOSPIN.jpg
- File:Didier Deschamps, 2000.jpg
- File:FAUVET-JOSPIN.jpg
- File:Jospin-Mauroy.jpg
- File:Jean francois cope.jpg
- File:Henri of Luxembourg and Lionel Jospin.jpeg
- File:Guiliano Amato et Lionel Jospin.jpg
- File:XavierDarcos.jpg
- File:Alain Prost 2000 France.jpg
- File:NoëlleLenoir.jpg
- File:Lionel Jospin 2001.jpg
- File:Rene Mayer - Рене Мэйер.jpg
- File:Lionel Jospin.jpg
- File:BuffetMadagascar.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about this? It says that pictures from the premier ministers press service are free to use (second paragraph). --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- This was adressed in previous deletion and I mentioned it above: This images are (presumably) free for commercial reuse but not licensed for modification. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The licensing terms for the photos from the Prime minister service have varied over the years, along with the governments. it is necessary to refer to the terms of release applicable to each era. Many (perhaps most) of the images listed above seem to be from the Jospin government era, and they were, at the time, released under the following terms : "Les photos du Service photo du Premier ministre, soit près de 1 500 clichés, sont à votre disposition, libre de droits. Vous pouvez en disposer gratuitement aussi bien pour une utilisation personnelle que professionnelle, à condition que la mention "Service photo du Premier ministre" soit indiquée." [12] (Personal translation: The photos from the Prime Minister's Photo Service, i.e. some 1500 photos, are at your disposal, free of rights. You may use them for free, as well for personal and for professional use, on the condition that the mention "Service photo du Premier ministre" is indicated.) This has been considered on Commons to be an attribution license. The other deletion request to which the nominnator refers dealed with different, more recent, photos, which were covered by the newer, different, more restrictive terms. The newer, restrictive, terms do not retroactively annihilate the permissive licenses that had already been granted earlier for the photos that were released in the previous years. If some images are specifically spotted that fall under the era of the restrictive terms, they can be deleted, but a mass deletion is not appropriate for the photos that are freely licensed. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Careful!! For the Jospin images you translate "libre de droits" with free of rights, thats incorrect! See fr:Wikipédia:Ressources_libres: Libre de droits has nothing to do with free content in our definition. This images are protected by copyright (not free of rights) and they are free for reproduction under royalty-free conditions but we dont know if they are free for modification, we must assume that they are not free enough. Also this was mentioned by Steff in the above linked deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Borloo- Fillon - Lagarde Une 500.jpg which also contained Jospin images. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - people do not like to say "you are free to distort this photo in any way you want" when it comes to portraits; the insistence by Commons on that kind of language is not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Borloo- Fillon - Lagarde Une 500.jpg Hekerui (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with the above. JJ Georges (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Conserver Idem --Orbitale (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- This has been going on since august, with no consensus for deletion, and indeed a majority of "keep" votes. I suggest we end this discussion, keep the images and just move on. JJ Georges (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- They don't comply with Commons policies, see Martin H. above, so we can't "just move on". Hekerui (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are we supposed to go on until a consensus if found for the deletion ? If so, that's not what I call a fair debate. No consensus has been found for the deletion in several months, so we should just abandon this proposal. JJ Georges (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keeping this files and thereby confirming that {{Attribution}} is valid will be wrong because it is simply not true. The images, per the previous deletion requests, are eligible for speedy deletion, the purpose of this is to review it. However, besides invalid arguments that are already denied at previous discussions, besides a "i dont care at all" comment by Pieter and besides two voters who even agree to the wrong arguments or the "i dont care about copyright" argument by PK there is no argument against not speedydeleting the images. So just move on and nuke them, this images are not eligible for inclusion in the first place. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- It appears, anyway, that there is no consensus whatsoever on this, so apparently the deletion request has simply failed. JJ Georges (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keeping this files and thereby confirming that {{Attribution}} is valid will be wrong because it is simply not true. The images, per the previous deletion requests, are eligible for speedy deletion, the purpose of this is to review it. However, besides invalid arguments that are already denied at previous discussions, besides a "i dont care at all" comment by Pieter and besides two voters who even agree to the wrong arguments or the "i dont care about copyright" argument by PK there is no argument against not speedydeleting the images. So just move on and nuke them, this images are not eligible for inclusion in the first place. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are we supposed to go on until a consensus if found for the deletion ? If so, that's not what I call a fair debate. No consensus has been found for the deletion in several months, so we should just abandon this proposal. JJ Georges (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- They don't comply with Commons policies, see Martin H. above, so we can't "just move on". Hekerui (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, according to Wikipédia:Ressources_libres "libre de droits" is not free enough for the images to be used at commons. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not want this image deleted, but it was tagged "speedy" and this is the only way to do this properly. This is not a copyrighted image, shisa by the thousands adorn everything in Okinawa prefecture, much like tikis in Hawaii and pyramids in Cairo. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Combined into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg
