Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Freedom of panorama in Iceland does not cover sculpturs and the copyright doesn't expire until 70 years following the death of the artist, which was in 1982. --Fingalo (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is an incidental inclusion. -Nard the Bard 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)- Keep per User Nard the Bard. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard Beep21 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A new request had been opened (not by me) --JuTa (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC):
- Quote (out of the image): Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect. Ásmundur has designed the house self. He died in 1982. Fingalo (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. See previous DR above. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Previously nominated twice. The first time it was kept because the nominator only mentioned the statues, which are de minimis. The second time, it was nominated for deletion because the image contains a building, which is not de minimis, but the nomination was speedily kept because the sculptures are de minimis, without considering the claims in the nomination. The building is still not de minimis and the photo still violates the copyright of the architect. The building is the whole purpose of the image, so it is impossibly de minimis. Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
highly likely a copyrighted comic and not the own work of the uploader - as stated High Contrast (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Highly likely a copyrighted comic and not the own work of the uploader - as stated High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems that Wiki deems it not worthy. Just please delete. Taurenlegend (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, found here Belgrano (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Violation de droit d'auteur, licence non appropriée : cf ici Varmin (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Otourly (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no permission from the office of the (now late) doctor and no assertion anywhere on the site about this image having any sort of CC license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Fhr_wiki.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No license, appears to be a professional shot. Mbinebri (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Commons is not a fotolog. Not educative value. Also, it looks like a private joke Ferbr1 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned company logo, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Company logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for statues in Japan 61.92.37.33 06:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - this is not a valid deletion request, cannot be solved in this global way (too: deletion of the catory or all images??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep for the category; many of the objects photographed are very old. Jonathunder (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Please nominate those images that should be deleted individually. ZooFari 01:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The possibility of the right of likeness or privacy infringement. Hitachi-Train (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete I think that there is a threat that I can identify an individual.--Hitachi-Train (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)- Keep I retouched to the face of the image. There is no privacy right of publicity infringement.--Soica2001 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per Soica2001. ZooFari 01:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Image failed license review. Links to a permission that does not excist (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5333797). I asked user for a permission (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1699865) but got no result.
Same problem with:
- File:Bairro Torre.JPG
- File:Basílica de N.S. das Neves.JPG
- File:João Pessoa (Aeroclube).JPG
- File:Palácio da Redenção (Sede do Governo Estadual).JPG
- File:Praça Antenor Navarro (Centro Histórico).JPG
- File:Tambaú (Vista Parcial).JPG
- File:Theatro Santa Roza (Interior).JPG
--MGA73 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete them all. There is no accessible typed permission anywhere sadly. If there was, this could have been kept since this images were uploaded in 2007/2008 before COM:OTRS became very strict in 2009. But there is not even one accessible permission anywhere. How can Commons keep these photos in this situation? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rechecked and still all rights reserved. ZooFari 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfocused, literally, and as regards subject; poor quality image with little useful information Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Legitimately in use. ZooFari 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Poor quality image of non-notable people only used for vandalism on en wiki. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly out of scope. No need to illustrate someone who (quoting from the en:wp article) "is a non-fictional, modern day demigod given birth by (actually he was not born he just was) Chuck Norris and Rhinoceros." Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The skull illustration are wrong in shape. I have done a better skull restoration, so we can delete this. Conty (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
BUG Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept: per Trycatch --Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
empty category, because it exists another one, more correct : Category:Ludvík Kundera 87.231.106.144 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Age_structure_of_Estonia_(1970-2010).png. Created a version that also includes 2010. Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This would not appear to meet the licensing requirements of Commons, as commercial uses and derivatives are not permitted. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The template suggests that these images are acceptable on the Commons (which they are not, as commercial use and derivatives are not permitted). Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Obviously. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Upload error. I have now posted a better version of same image. Coycan (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by User:Chibchabogotadc
[edit]Many of these photos are claimed to be PD-self, but there are 11 different cameras used, two have watermarks, and there's also the inconsistency in file extensions (JPG vs jpg), which makes them all suspicious. It's possible this user is the creator of some of the images, but I highly doubt it's more than a few. These are listed in reverse chronological order of upload. --howcheng {chat} 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Interior Centro Comercial Unicentro Tunja.JPG (Samsung S860)
- File:Seminario Parque.JPG (Samsung S860)
- File:La Fuente de San Ignacio de Loyola.jpg (Canon PowerShot A470)
- File:Tunja High.jpg (no EXIF)
- File:Centro de Tunja.JPG (no EXIF)
- File:Tunja D.C.H..jpg (Nikon E8700) - likely copied from http://radio.rphf.spbstu.ru/~abris/la2007/ (pic) Trycatch (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Casa j vargas13.jpg (HP Photosmart E427, has Holy Roman Empire coat of arms watermark in corner)
- File:Iglesia de Santa Barbara.jpg (Canon PowerShot A470)
- File:Capilla Sixtina del Barroco Del Rosario TUNJA.jpg (Olympus S300D)
- File:Chicha Aromática.jpg (no EXIF, but has text superimposed on photo)
- File:Garulla y Masato de Tunja.jpg (no EXIF)
- File:Tejo Universitario en Tunja D.H.C..jpg (no EXIF)
- File:Icono Chibcha de Oro.jpg (no EXIF) -- a very close-up shot of a museum piece in low-light conditions
- File:Rio Teatinos y El Puente de Boyacá.jpg (Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT)
- File:Puente de Boyacá y otros puentes históricos sobre el Río Teatinos en Inmediaciones del sur de la Ciudad.jpg (no camera info)
- File:Trazado Hispánico Moderno desde el Aire - Reminiscencias Andaluzas y Castellanas.jpg (Nikon Coolpix L5)
- File:Centro Comercial Plaza Real Tunja desde el Parque La Esperanza.jpg (Canon PowerShot Pro1)
- File:UPTC Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia TUNJA D.H.C.jpg (no EXIF)
- File:JPEG Escudo de Armas de la Muy Noble y Muy Leal Ciudad de Tunja D.H.C..JPG (flag image)
- File:TUNJA D.C. UNICENTRO desde Villas de Aranjuez.jpg (no EXIF)
- File:Edificio del Centro de Tunja.jpg (Kodak EasyShare M1063)
- File:Edificio Villas de Aranjuez Barrio LA ESMERALDA Tunja D.H.C.jpg (Kodak EasyShare M1063)
- File:Barrio La Esmeralda Villas de Aranjuez TUNJA D.H.C.jpg (Kodak EasyShare M1063)
- File:Tunja Distrito Cultural Universitario e Historico de Colombia.JPG (Canon ZR600)
- File:Tunja Estacion del Tren Sur.jpg (Canon ZR600) - likely http://mach.netai.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:bienvenido-a-mach&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=37 Trycatch (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all. Some pictures have been copied from presumably the uploader's Panoramio photostream, full of copyvios as well. Trycatch (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Serious copyvio problems. Delete all. Diego Grez return fire 00:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
School logo not likely to be owned by the uploader as claimed Eeekster (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely to be both "Taken from school's web site" and "own work" as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Kelly van Soest is a musician and DJ from the Netherlands named here en:Music Made Addictz and here nl:Evil Activities. However, this picture is blurred and has very poor quality, while this one File:Kelly van Soest1.jpg illustrates this person much better. --Santosga (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Neither picture is very sharp, so let's keep both and hope we get a better one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing here suggests that this picture belongs to the photographer who uploaded this to Flickr. Fixer23 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This animated map is a less accurate and less detailed version of File:British Empire evolution3.gif. It currently sees no use whatsoever on other projects. Swarm (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed! This map is a duplicate of File:British Empire evolution3.gif and has errors in it all over the world. Maps & Lucy (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless the sculptor can be proven to have died over 70 years ago, this work is copyrighted and French law (no FoP) does not allow publication of the photograph under a Free licence. --Rama (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless sculptor proven to have died over 70 years. Rama (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- this is not exactly an artwork. this is an Holocaust memorial. You could say exactly the same about all the thousands of Holocaust memorials all over the world. All of them are less than 70 years. if you consider them as ordinary artwork (what they are not), you can also remove all the pictures in the Category:Holocaust memorials and all its subcategories (Some of them are in France) and the same for Category:War memorials. Djampa.
- There is not Freedom of Panorama in France, that's why these are copyvio. If these were in Germany or in Switzerland (FoP in these countries), the pictures could be free. Kyro (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-
Besançon, France. (celle-ci a l'autorisation des ayant-droits).
-
Troyes, France.
-
Drancy, France.
-
Paris,France.
-
Paris,France.
-
Noyers-Saint-Martin (Oise, France)
-
Saverne, France
-
Nantes, France
-
Starasbourg, France -
Palinges, France
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_au_P%C3%A8re_Lachaise.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep We could say the same thing about thousands and thousands images on commons, like File:Gare de Lyon bCRW 1249.jpg or File:Fall of the Berlin Wall Memorial, Square de Berlin, Paris 8.jpg -Alt0160 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- All the files you show above are works of art. That many have been uploaded to Commons changes nothing to the fact that there is no FoP in France. Those that are located in France are therefore all copyvios. Rama (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of Ecrouves, we are clearly in front of a picture representing a memorial (the main information is the plate) made of a plate surrounded by a landscape with trees, flowers and a statue, clearly not the unique item of the picture. --olevy (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- KeepAs above --olevy (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per rama : No FoP in France. Kyro (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keepit's not an artwork Ishpashout (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a derivative work of a copyrighted work, and because of the absence of FoP in France, it can't be free and therefore must be deleted. Kyro (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete sculpted WWII memorial in France : similar with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mont-Valerien Saumur.JPG. {{NoFoP-France}}. Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I, like most of us on Commons, don't like the lack of FOP for sculpture in France and the USA, among others, but it is the law and our policy is to enforce it. This image includes both sculpture and architecture, so it certainly infringes one and probably infringes two or three copyrights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find it at the source given and there's no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. And the source cite has an explicit copyright notice covering all of its images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation : Australian artwork published in 1955 is still under copyright Rcbutcher (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - I am sorry for misreading the Australian copyright section.
Regards, Roslyn
- Question - About this Keogh map in Affair of Katia article. Is it not ok under the 25 years since publication section?
This is all very confusing. Its such a nice map for the article that I would like to have it if I can, but obviously want to do the right thing.
- 25 years is the period of copyright for typesetting arrangements - e.g. if I print an edition of a public-domain book by recreating the typesetting, the typesetting I create is protected for 25 years in some countries. If I just publish a facsimile version the reprint is not protected because I haven't actually rearranged or created any typesetting. Like wise if I do some work on public-domain photographs and add captions etc, you can't use that arrangement in Wikipedia, you need to find either a version older than 25 years or a version republished "as is" i.e. with no value added by the republisher.
In the case of the image in question, copyright would be held initially by the creator, Joan Graham, until 70 years after death, i.e. until at least 2025. You can check copyright status of this book at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2436744/Copyright? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Embarrassing correction : the whole book is now in the public domain as it was effectively an Australian government publication and hence only copyrighted for 50 years i.e. until 2005. The reason : "the Army’s Directorate of Military Training produced, under the authorship of Colonel E. Keogh, a very good book-sized review of the campaign, Suez to Aleppo. This book was intended as a prescriptive history to be read by soldiers in an effort to impart what its author saw as its “lessons learned”: intended for a narrow readership and not commercially published...". Reference : http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j40/bou.asp .
- According to the Australian copyright law, "Generally, a government will own copyright in material either created or first published under its direction or control.".
- Hence the whole book is now in public domain as Australian government works are only copyrighted for 50 years. Hence the appropriate copyright tag is {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Hence I believe we should remove the image deletion template and close this. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It has been confirmed that this map is now in the public domain as it was published by the Australian Government more than 50 years old.--RoslynSKP (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Suspect copyright violation [1] Image is the same as on Aston University website - would indicate copyright is actually owned by Aston University. (orig. nominated by 128.243.253.108) -- Kaganer (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It remains unclear where the aerial photograph/satellite image comes from High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ana 187.58.222.71 12:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why should tih be deleted? --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. This DR is the only edit of this user and is not explained. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Very unclear copyright situation. Source is "a calender photo" and author ist a society. So I don't know if we can trust the uploader. Avron (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Avron, there is no copyright protection for photos on the calender, and Society in non profit organization: Society of Ukraines cultural heritage promotion ... Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- How do you know there is no copyright protection for photos on the calender? non-profit does say nothing about copyright.--Avron (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no any copyright mark or anything else on the calendar or photos on the calendar. Stay focus on more serious problems, this photo is realy not a problem for anyone except you I guess. --SeikoEn (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing more, nothing less: COM:SCOPE#Precautionary_principle. Other files which you have uploaded have the same problem.--Avron (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do it your way Avron! I am not so possessed with does photos. Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I would like to keep this pictures, but Commons has mission. Pictures on commons can be used by others (eg. printed in books) so the copyright of pictures must be really free.--Avron (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do it your way Avron! I am not so possessed with does photos. Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing more, nothing less: COM:SCOPE#Precautionary_principle. Other files which you have uploaded have the same problem.--Avron (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User:SeikoEn has it backwards -- there is no requirement for a copyright mark or notice -- what we require is an explicit release or license for this 1994 work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ágúst Pálsson (1893 – 1967) --Fingalo (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ágúst Pálsson (1893 – 1967) --Fingalo (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ágúst Pálsson (1893 – 1967) --Fingalo (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ágúst Pálsson (1893 – 1967) --Fingalo (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ingimundar Sveinsson. He lives.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional. Not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, this looks like a posed professional photo, so not very likely to be an own work. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the ?en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional. Not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, that article said that this image was a posed professional photo, so not very likely to be an own work. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
empty category beagle84 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, there were items in this category until the nominator made edits such as this. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This change is due to standardization, like Category:Oslo or Category:Bergen. Trondheim city is not an official therm/conception and therefore a vague and inexact category, also since Trondheim is both a city and municipality (like Bergen and Oslo). beagle84 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the ?en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional. Not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, that article said that this image was a posed professional photo, so not very likely to be an own work. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
empty category beagle84 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional. Not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, this looks like a posed professional photo, so not very likely to be an own work. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
PR style photos of a notable individual used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Probably copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Only used at the en:wp article on Miral Faisal, which was deleted as promotional; not likely to be used elsewhere, so out of scope. Moreover, the uploader has also uploaded several photos taken by professional photographers, so it's quite likely that this isn't an own work either. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Company logo of some sort used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Probably copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir et al. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir et al. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir et al. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir et al. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir et al. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No in any project scope Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Taken from a website & no evidence of permission. Easily replaceable with a free version. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Source has explicit copyright notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploader unlikely to hold the copyright Eeekster (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be deleted. Its just visual reference for the Coastal Carolina University Football team.
Deleted. Per nom. We don't have a license and it's clearly subject to copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Error Boxeotraining (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Question I do not understand this deletion request. It appears to be a user asking to delete his/her own talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Um, ok. It seems like his "error" was making an account here... Doesn't seem like he'll be coming back so no need for a talk page. Rocket000 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Zharinia (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. Most likely web-site atrwork. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be very questionable whether the uploader is indeed the author of this image and entitled to upload it as "own work". This image of a purported meteorite was uploaded only to illustrate an article in the German Wikipedia which turned out to be a fake, see the deletion discussion (in German) - there is no such meteorite. Of course it could be kept nevertheless if truly the uploader's own work, but the shady reason for uploading it makes it likely, I think, that it was just taken from somewhere else. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Gestumblindi --Isderion (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete very doubtful "own work". --Saibo (Δ) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Photos of people who are not "of public interest" cannot be published in Finland without the consent of the subject if the person is the main subject of the photo. Jafeluv (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- If that photo removed this principle so everyone else in Finland described in the photographs remove, now off debate used in practice best invoked individuals for their personal opinion in interpretation of the Finnish law see that page D100a (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at this more closely, I'm not sure whether the licensing policy is entirely correct in stating that photos of regular people in public places may not be published without their consent. There doesn't seem to be such a requirement in law (although criminal law does forbid publishing a photo that violates someone's privacy, which is not the case here). According to the article linked by D100a above, there's no law concerning neutral photos of regular people in public spaces. Korpela refers to a Finnish Supreme Court case which stated that a person's photo cannot be used for advertising or marketing purposes without explicit permission. However, such a restriction does not necessarily conflict with our policies since it's covered by {{Personality rights}}. Korpela goes on to recommend that photographers ask for permission before taking a picture unless it's clear from the circumstances (eg. taking a family photo for personal use). He also refers to a well-referenced seminar work on the subject by Pauliina Sipilä, available on the Internet Archive. It's worth considering whether it's the policy that needs to be updated. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The concept of private protection, at least in Finland, is one of those situations where the description is in a private area such as at home or in his own house in the yard which is fenced in Finland in a public place means any place, such as square or park, even the beach.So, when you walk in the street you are in a public place and you can describe, for example, save the internet or even a newspaper without the need to ask permission to the hazard of people in the picture. However, this is one condition, namely appearing in the picture may not be present in a negative context drunk to figure must not appoint a clown or village idiot. Now, in the case of immigrant family named the picture so the picture does not contain the people to describe in any way to describe a negative or humiliating, such as refugees or interfere with their skin color in any way. So the people in question are described neutrally and objectively. Personally, I believe that if the practice does not change in the right direction may have a negative impact because the photographs which are described in people in public places. Acquisition of new images from Finland where there are any ordinary person on foot at work, or otherwise lawful things more difficult when it comes to go in the opposite direction to weed out irrelevant templates ordinary people from ordinary people D100a (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, I've posted a question on the policy's talk page to get some some opinions on this. Jafeluv (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the image is very problematic. It seems it is taken without even implicit permission. Refugees are often quite sensitive about being photographed, as revealing where they are might be dangerous for them or their relatives. Publishing images that reveal sensitive information about private life is illegal, even if the photo is taken on a public place.
- The relevant section of the criminal code is in the 24th chapter, 8 § (as amended 9.6.2000/531), here cited from the criminal law in Swedish on Finlex):
- "Den som obehörigen 1) genom ett massmedium eller 2) genom att på något annat sätt göra tillgängligt för ett stort antal människor framför en uppgift, antydan eller bild som gäller någons privatliv så att gärningen är ägnad att orsaka skada eller lidande för den kränkte eller utsätta honom eller henne för missaktning, skall för spridande av information som kränker privatlivet dömas till böter eller fängelse i högst två år."
- Which in this context means that (warning: bad translation) he who unrightfully by mass media or otherwise for a great number of people reveals information, hints or publishes an image about somebody's private life, in a way that is likely to cause damage or suffering or harm to his reputation, might be sentenced to fines or prison for not more than two years. (The section does not concern public persons, if the information is relevant.)
- Probably the image is legal anyway. But as the image is problematic, I wonder whether it has significant educational value. I suppose the photographer does not in fact know that the persons are a family or that they are immigrants. They might be friends or relatives. Some of them might just be visiting Finland. In that case it is just a picture of random people in Meri-Rastila.
- I myself have lived in Meri-Rastila area since 1992. This neighborhood has changed over the years, immigrant backgrounds residential area, in this picture are people I've seen a fair shops and walking through here anyway. Immigrant or refugee that's a question that is not necessarily what the Finns do not know all these terms mean. Personally, I am amazed at the debate on what this image was born as multilingual Finnish Wikipedia as here. I would like that this debate will be closed as unnecessary, the matter is forgotten and we continue to develop this project in order to get better pictures without the pointless debate you what the law says the right should not be considered to describe only in terms of its own laws and can not be talk whether the picture for publication in Finland if it violates the law of the Swedish national articles D100a (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If they often are seen together they are probably immigrants, not visitors. But it might be quite easy to ask them whether they oppose this picture being published. If they are frightened by the idea, then I think we should not host it.
- Kirjoita mielellään myös suomeksi, niin minä ja monet muut Suomen oloja tuntevat ymmärtävät paremmin. Mikä tuo ruotsalaiskansallisheitto oli olevinaan?
- Under Finnish law, I do not need to ask anyone in a public place Pedestrians permission to describe him, if image is used effectively in connection with, and I do not seek to advertise any product or proclaim any political message. Google Maps Street View residents, therefore, should ask whether they will publish this picture? If the conclusion is that the images which occur in any ordinary man with a marker so should the images be removed? Although they are not necessarily the main characters. I think it has begun to feel that even though we discussed most of the image is intended only to remove the perceived image as inappropriate ways of foul or do not understand all the concepts.[2] D100a (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cannonball_MC_Members_Helsinki_2009.JPG){kind=link}
- You may say that, but read the law. Google Street View was very controversial and they removed some views. Nobody has claimed you have to ask permissions from people in the background. The legal question is whether the picture is such that you should suppose publishing it may harm the persons (my best try at translating the legalese). The other question is of course whether this picture is likely to be educationally useful. At Finnish Wikipedia it was argued that there are quite a few better pictures illustrating immigrants in Finland.
- Tässä ei nyt ole kyse siitä mitä sinä ajattelet oikeuksistasi. Oletko lukenut tuon pykälän 8 yksityisyyteen kuuluvan tiedon levittämisestä? Yritä keskustella sen pykälän pohjalta: onko tämä kuva omiaan aiheuttamaan haittaa? Ihmiset ovat mahdollisesti pakolaisia, mahdollisesti siis vainottuja. Onko heidän vaaratonta näkyä Commonsin Immigrants in Finland -luokassa, kotipaikka paljastaen. Miksi voi olettaa ettei vaaraa ole?
- Siis mitä? mistä sinä nostit että he ovat todellakin pakolaisia? Nyt on kyseessä se että onko maahanmuutaja perhe kuva sovelias julkaistavissa Commonsissa. Mistä sinä sait idean että he ovat vainottuja? Pitäisikö heidät siis luokitalla jossakin muussa luokassa? Missä? kerro missä kohtaa pykälässä mainitaan että maahanmuutto on yksityinen asia? D100a (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Suomi: "Mahdollisesti". Eli sen mukaan ei voi luokitella, nimetä tai kuvata, mutta varovaisuus on paikallaan. Ymmärtäkseni muslimimaista tulevista maahanmuuttajista useimmat ovat hakeneet turvapaikkaa Suomesta. Jos haluat käydä keskustelua, älä hyökkää sellaista vastaan, mitä kukaan ei ole väittänyt.English: I probably won't answer further straw man attacks
Here is a link to the file and deletion discussions on Finnish Wikipedia, where the file first was uploaded. Many people seemed to be upset about the file, but nobody cited any legal authority. It seems that the practice of asking permission before taking pictures of individual persons is quite widely recommended. --LPfi (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Kirjoitit: "Ihmiset ovat mahdollisesti pakolaisia, mahdollisesti siis vainottuja. Onko heidän vaaratonta näkyä Commonsin Immigrants in Finland -luokassa, kotipaikka paljastaen" Itse en ole paisutellut tai mitenkään nostanut pakolaisteemaa asilistalle "Hitler-kortti" tyyppisesti. Sinä sen teit.. D100a (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- You wrote: "People are possibly refugees, thus possibly being persecuted. Do they appear harmless Commons Immigrants in Finland-class seat, revealing" Personally, I have not inflated, or in any way brought the theme of refugees on the agenda of "Hitler card" type accommodation. Did you do it ..D100a (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wonder why a fuss was raised so hard when one image on the legality of that there should be no surprise. Possibly part of the Finnish legislation does not know what that level should be able to operate without unnecessary negative attitudes or fears of known new cases in point. Most of the comments focused on the theme that their pictures are Muslims and they should not describe at all when Muslims are forbidden by their faith to be a photograph. For myself that religion is indeed a wonderful thing how many times the Muslims in general or even dark skin has been described in the West without the filming should take place asking what religion they recognize? Is it so that the picture would be ok if the picture even though most Russians for immigrants when they are "white" or is it the Lapps did not describe with when they have skin color like a dictionary. I would have thought that this stupid debate is maintained here, the main focus really should not be marginalized shit for grinding, because the principles of Western society kaikkai religions or skin colors, ie it should not be of any relevance D100a (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The quality of this picture is very low and in my opinion it's also totally useless. I don't know any article where this could be used. So, no matter the legal status, I support deleting this file. Nironen (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not the image quality mode can be set to delete files. Pictures should really be a little more obscure or badly exposed. Or does your common-member photography photos recording a professional or a placement test so we can raise the level of images. I have thought that here may save your own amateur pictures but I was wrong. To Mr. Nironen be taking some of the picture for immigrants and put a better picture of the subject so I promise to remove the image immediately.D100a (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. Under Finnish law, it is legal to take photographs of persons at public places. It is also legal to publish these photographs to some extent.
- The Criminal Code of Finland, chapter 24, section 8 (in English, in Finnish) states:
- "Section 8 – Dissemination of information violating personal privacy (531/2000)
- (1) A person who unlawfully
- (1) through the use of the mass media, or
- (2) otherwise by making available to many persons
- disseminates information, an insinuation or an image of the private life of another person, so that the act is conducive to causing that person damage or suffering, or subjecting that person to contempt, shall be sentenced for dissemination of information violating personal privacy to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
- (2) The spreading of information, an insinuation or an image of the private life of a person in politics, business, public office or public position, or in a comparable position, does not constitute dissemination of information violating personal privacy, if it may affect the evaluation of that person’s activities in the position in question and if it is necessary for purposes of dealing with a matter with importance to society."
- (This is the same section LPfi is referring in one of his comments.)
- Now, I don't think mere publishing this image on Wikimedia Commons (or on a Wikipedia or newspaper article) could violate the Criminal Code, so I think, it is safe to keep the image. Yes, the image is of low quality, and yes, its educational value is not that high either. But there a lot worse pictured in Commons, too. However, we cannot be sure that the people in the picture are immigrants, and some people regard "immigrant" as politically charged word, so I think we should rename the picture as some more neutral name (e.g. File:People in Meri-Rastila in 2010.jpg). --Apalsola t • c 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you want the positives of immigrant family name should be changed to "Meri-Rastila people" just how the picture could just claim they are from the Meri-Rastila child when my children were born here, they might say they are "local" people. these are clearly foreigners, and just recently moved here ... So they are not refugees, but for immigrants who are generally positive description of the new Finnish..D100a (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was just an example. And actually it is not "People from Meri-Rastila" but "People in Meri-Rastila". --Apalsola t • c 07:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- If other supports that name, so why it could move .. I think it would be good if the special tag for that use would be a good discussion before, if it is assumed to be included in the picture. D100a (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep J.K Nakkila (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete This photo may or may not be legal to publish under a free license under Finnish law. However, given that there is a reasonable doubt as to its legality, not to mention the ethical problems associated with publishing a photo of identifiable people without their permission, I think it would be best to delete. Finding someone representative and asking permission is not a prohibitive enough burden to justify keeping this image of moderate quality that was obtained by dubious means. Buddy431 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
KeepI can not properly understand the law, I would have to seek permission to describe these people? Not any of Commons has pictures of other countries, described the refugees or immigrants. Why is this image should be removed just because it is a picture of people walking in the park. If this file is deleted then it should be removed from the other pictures where people are photographed in the streets or in parks.D100a (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong Delete. For four reasons: 1) The legality of photo is questionable (see above), as well as the motive behind uploading it. 2) The pictured people are possibly avoiding persecution in their country of origin, and the availability of the photo without their consent is, in the worst case, endangering their asylum and thus their personal safety. 3) It is not used in any articles across any projects, and it is of low technical quality (blurred and shaken). 4) It would be trivial to produce a photo of crucially higher technical quality about the same subject without any legal and moral open questions by simply asking an immigrant family for a permission to portrait. --Hydrox (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the uploader wants to reply to this comment, I would kindly ask him to write in both Finnish and English. --Hydrox (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This discussion has been open long enough.
- The image has no clear educational value, being blurred and with a tree in the way. There is nothing particularly interesting about the family. We do not, in fact, even know that it is a family, despite the name. It could be two kids with a baby-sitter and a teacher. It could be the parents of one child and a friend of the child. Therefore it is out-of-scope.
- With respect to the broader issues raised above, do not use this as a precedent, as I think this image is a keep on those grounds.
1) Three of the four people are not identifiable. The man might be identifiable, but I think not. There is clearly no problem with people who cannot be identified.
2) The Finnish law quoted above does not prohibit this photograph from being published:
- "Section 8 – Dissemination of information violating personal privacy (531/2000)
- 1) A person who unlawfully
- (1) through the use of the mass media, or
- (2) otherwise by making available to many persons
- disseminates information, an insinuation or an image of the private life of another person, so that the act is conducive to causing that person damage or suffering, or subjecting that person to contempt, shall be sentenced for dissemination of information violating personal privacy to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years." [emphasis added]
The key here is "private life of another person". This photograph was taken in a public place and is, therefore, not covered by the quoted law. It is also unclear how the people in the photo might be damaged or suffer as a result of the photo.
3) Most (maybe all? some are not explicit?) countries have rules about the use of photographs of identifiable people for commercial use. We have no trouble hosting photographs of individuals taken in public places in the USA. If an advertiser were to take such an image and publish it with the caption, "I love Super-Cola", the individual could demand compensation. Similarly, if a newspaper took such an image and published it with the caption, "This person is an idiot", it would face an action for libel. The Finnish law is a codification of this, but doesn't require any special treatment from us as the same is true everywhere else, as far as I know. In fact, the Finnish law covers only images of private life -- while the more general expectation is that you cannot publish images that defame, whether public or private.
4) Where we do need to be careful of the Finnish and similar laws is images of people in public places doing stupid or embarrassing things (not the case here). If such an image were taken in the USA, in most circumstances it could be published without any problem. The Finnish law might prevent publication of such an image since it might subject the person to contempt, which is protected, even if they deserve it. I say might because it would have to be argued that the image was of "private life" even though taken in a public place.
5) There is some discussion above of our hosting images of identifiable people without their permission. In general, our policy is that this is not a problem as long as the image was taken in a public place. There are exceptions, but without such a policy most city scenes would be impossible.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.transfery.info/news-full-7540.html. Even if not, poorly-sourced Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment source was updated on 2008-06-15 22:48:36, one year after the file was uploaded. ZooFari 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation (no reliable source). Kameraad Pjotr 21:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I created that (translation to Catalan) but the English version is clearer (I can't understand why). Ssola (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Image is look like old,No description, No varifiable source, author maybe wrong, wrong license Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution no meta data Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Not so bad quality and tha only one photo of this person as I can see. Geagea (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing seems fine, original uploader had stated he took it himself and released it into the public domain, and no free equivalent is there. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment How do I verify?. There is no author/user in english wiki Bhaswati Bhattacharya. If he capture in his digicam, why should not upload with hight resolution with meta data? Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course the user exists, he started the article on Kumar Bose, and the rest of your statement is only speculation. If you wanted an image with higher resolution you should have tried to contact the user instead or looked for another one. Regards Hekerui (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how do you say that the user exists. Rather than personal attach please show the link of this users page. I shall contact him/her regarding this issue.Jayanta Nath (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was no personal attack. The user talk page is here. Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how do you say that the user exists. Rather than personal attach please show the link of this users page. I shall contact him/her regarding this issue.Jayanta Nath (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for this link. It is clearly shown that this image w:en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.In log says Author: Bhaswati Bhattacharya, taken at the Barbican Theatre, London on Source: my digital camera It is a free image, donated to the ether. then permission should be shown.- Jayanta Nath (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The other image you nominated states another author, so permission should be shown indeed, but not for own work, uploaded on Wiki under a free license by the photographer. The image has no metadata because I converted it to jpg from a png that had none. If you assume a copyright violation, please state why so we can move forward - otherwise I don't understand the reasoning. Hekerui (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for this link. It is clearly shown that this image w:en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.In log says Author: Bhaswati Bhattacharya, taken at the Barbican Theatre, London on Source: my digital camera It is a free image, donated to the ether. then permission should be shown.- Jayanta Nath (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- See dear Hekerui, If you think this image is truly free and captured and uploaded by Bhaswati Bhattacharya,it could be retained. I have no strong proof of copyright violation but I have some doubt regarding this image.Jayanta Nath (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
He was died in 1971, Copyvio Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Tagged duplicate by User:Art-top [3]; superseded GIF -> SVG: File:Bird template.svg --ZooFari 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bird_template.gif&diff=prev&oldid=42159923){kind=link}
- Keep looks like the SVG based on this GIF. Trycatch (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is PD, if that's what you're getting at. Rocket000 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- PD or not, I don't feel it's a good idea to delete source pictures of the derivative works hosted on Commons. Trycatch (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I would agree if they were really deleted, but hiding some of our inferior images that have been replaced improves our collection, IMO. I know keeping one doesn't hurt anything but keeping them all does. This image isn't that bad, so I guess this is more of a general statement, but if Commons doesn't start getting a little more discerning and attempt some kind of quality control, this site will eventually get a negative reputation for having too much redundant crap and poor quality images that drown out the good stuff (the "make a gallery then" answer to this isn't being realistic). We break the history chain all the time with articles and transwiki'd content, I don't know why people feel so much different about local images. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- In my view the problem is not in quality control, but in classification of Commons content, in organisation of browsing on Commons and so on. There is wide class of pictures which are useful by itself, but useless for a casual reader -- original files for panoramas, pictures before restoration (or different restoration approaches), ~50-100MB tiffs of raw data, several very similar (but different) files on the same subject and so on. The solution is some filtering approach, because even strongest deletionism I can realistically imagine can't fully solve the problem (but certainly will destroy a lot of educationally useful Commons content). "We break the history chain all the time with articles and transwiki'd content" -- and it's a very bad thing! Look here, for example. All (well, the most) of these pictures had been properly published in en-wiki, wrongly transwikied to Commons, deleted at en, then deleted (or will be deleted) here, i.e. deleted all around, and likely lost forever, because the history is lost for the rest of community. It's awful, the current file transferring process is awful. Trycatch (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I go back and forth on the issue. We just need some kind of filtering. In a way, deleting (i.e. hiding to all but admins) is filtering but there are other ways of course. (Personally, I wouldn't mind non-amins being able to view deleted non-oversighted content.) It's something I think about a lot, especially when I go through categories like Category:Media needing categories as of 6 September 2008 (so much crap!). Anyway, when it gets bad enough, I think we'll figure something out. "Deprecated" categories are a start. Rocket000 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Deletion is the worst kind of filtering. Commons was created for all, not for private pleasures of the admins (obvious point), but even admins can't easily browse the deleted content -- it become unaccessible via full-text search & cats. Trycatch (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I go back and forth on the issue. We just need some kind of filtering. In a way, deleting (i.e. hiding to all but admins) is filtering but there are other ways of course. (Personally, I wouldn't mind non-amins being able to view deleted non-oversighted content.) It's something I think about a lot, especially when I go through categories like Category:Media needing categories as of 6 September 2008 (so much crap!). Anyway, when it gets bad enough, I think we'll figure something out. "Deprecated" categories are a start. Rocket000 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- In my view the problem is not in quality control, but in classification of Commons content, in organisation of browsing on Commons and so on. There is wide class of pictures which are useful by itself, but useless for a casual reader -- original files for panoramas, pictures before restoration (or different restoration approaches), ~50-100MB tiffs of raw data, several very similar (but different) files on the same subject and so on. The solution is some filtering approach, because even strongest deletionism I can realistically imagine can't fully solve the problem (but certainly will destroy a lot of educationally useful Commons content). "We break the history chain all the time with articles and transwiki'd content" -- and it's a very bad thing! Look here, for example. All (well, the most) of these pictures had been properly published in en-wiki, wrongly transwikied to Commons, deleted at en, then deleted (or will be deleted) here, i.e. deleted all around, and likely lost forever, because the history is lost for the rest of community. It's awful, the current file transferring process is awful. Trycatch (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I would agree if they were really deleted, but hiding some of our inferior images that have been replaced improves our collection, IMO. I know keeping one doesn't hurt anything but keeping them all does. This image isn't that bad, so I guess this is more of a general statement, but if Commons doesn't start getting a little more discerning and attempt some kind of quality control, this site will eventually get a negative reputation for having too much redundant crap and poor quality images that drown out the good stuff (the "make a gallery then" answer to this isn't being realistic). We break the history chain all the time with articles and transwiki'd content, I don't know why people feel so much different about local images. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- PD or not, I don't feel it's a good idea to delete source pictures of the derivative works hosted on Commons. Trycatch (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is PD, if that's what you're getting at. Rocket000 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, deletion would break the attribution path. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Low reslution no meta data Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - in use at en.wiki and does not appear to be anywhere else on the internet.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: logic for keeping this image is so funny. use at en.wiki and does not appear to be anywhere else on the internet.Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I italicized "appear". My point is simply that we have no proof that it has been lifted or a derivative of another copyrighted work, it is in scope. It's not high definition, but it's good enough quality in my opinion to keep, and it is being used. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: logic for keeping this image is so funny. use at en.wiki and does not appear to be anywhere else on the internet.Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Taken off his official website : [4] which is clearly copyrighted (bottom of homepage). No evidence of an authorization. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What is the meaning of the remark: ""Our Millennial Fair" approve to upload the above photograph of Yasunori Mitsuda to Wikimedia commons." on the website? --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - that does seem to imply that it was in fact Procyon Studio that was behind the user Procyonstudio uploading the picture. Someone (who knows a bit of Japanese) should email them and get them to submit a proper ticket. --PresN (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unless a proper ticket can be obtained quickly this should be deleted speedily - a free-use image of Mitsuda exists on the English language version of wikipedia here[5] that could better replace this copywritten one in all instances. Solid State Survivor (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, needs a proper OTRS ticket. Even if they approve the upload, we need confirmation that they understand and agree to the cc-by license. –Tryphon☂ 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Do we, I wonder... This indication on the official website quite (yes, that IS the problem) indicates that the account is controlled by the "Millennial Fair" folks (whether it is Mitsuda hilself or other people). Therefore, should'nt we handle this as any other upload, and the we would have no reason to believe that they did not understand the licence as well as any other uploader.
Anyway, I left a note on the Japanese-speaking village pump asking for help. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Yasunori_Mitsuda.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This flag is obviously a misinterpretation of a Byzantine flag from the Catalan Atlas, see this discussion at the English WP. Constantine ✍ 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Yes, this flag is mislabeled as a Ottoman flag when it was actually a flag used by the last ruling Dynasty of Constantinople. Most likely the cartographer merely used the flag to easily identify the city as Constantinople and not to imply it was the flag of the new Ottoman conquerors, as this flag has flown over the city for hundreds of years and well-recognized. It should be noted there are crosses used on the flag that are notably missing on the map; this hints that the cartographer new of the Ottoman conquest and removed the Christian symbols from a newly-Muslim city and furthers the idea that the flag was an identifier of the city and nothing more. 173.24.117.126 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, just to clarify this: the Catalan Atlas dates from 1375, 78 years before the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. There was no need to use the symbols in any way other than to denote the city for what it was at the time, i.e. the seat of the Byzantine Empire.... Constantine ✍ 08:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hah, now I feel stupid and foolish, not even realizing the dates. Yes, given the date of the map precedes the fall of the city to the Ottomans, it is impossible that the flag over the city could be construed as a flag of the Ottomans. 173.24.117.126 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map - NL - Epe - Wijk 02 Vaassen - Buurt 01 Vaassen-Noord-West.svg
