Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Pentagon_Aerial_on_September_11,_2002_by_Angela_Stafford,_U.S._Air_Force_(DOD_020911-F-3968S-001)_(290165442).jpg
[edit]built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep There's FOP for buildings in the USA. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep FOP for buildings applies in the US. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 ([[User talk:Cezarika1|talk</s
- kept per COM:FOP#United_States. Rama (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
pan>]]) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Mistake Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Albino mole -- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not under creative commons. It is my work. MisterTS (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) - The original picture is that one: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Datei:Direktkandidaten_pp_mfr.jpg and was took by myself. I did not agree on any CC lincence for that picture. MisterTS (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. See: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Lizenz --Moros (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This license is related only to the text. Trycatch (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do not delete The licence is here: "Ab dem 12.11.2006 01:31 (GMT+1) eingestellte Inhalte stehen unter der Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 2.0(=cc-by-sa-2.0)-Lizenz." here is the licence site: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Lizenz
here the original file: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Datei:Direktkandidaten_pp_mfr.jpg thanks for your help, I hope every thing necessary to keep the file is done, if not, please tell me
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
JkjkynlxQpnuu 166.205.5.28 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. "JkjkynlxQpnuu" is not convincing. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept speedily: Invalid reason, test edits by IP. ZooFari 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
415ù 88.186.68.111 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, vandalism nomination. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
wrong name CapPixel (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Kit body rightangleshoulderonwhite.png
This painting isn't in the public domain yet, unfortunately. The author died in 1943. Ronn (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Thanks. It can be deleted. Megamot (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: This painting isn't in the public domain yet
11111 118.118.120.170 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(Speedy keep No reason given for deletion. File in use. No reason to doubt copyright. Photograph of performer in public performance, so no reason to suspect privacy infringement. Deletion request looks like vandalism. --Simonxag (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy . Nomination seems to be a test edit. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of musician with no notability as voted here en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelv - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
unused photo of person with no notabilty, article was speedydeleted here tr:Kemal Şener - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That is in Spain, not in Russia like the above ones. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The use of this image in Wikipedia is consistent with the freedom of panorama rules for Spain. Jonathunder (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of panorama in Spain. --Starscream (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I even went to the trouble of linking to the freedom of panorama rules for Spain on the info page! - gobeirne (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC).
Kept. per Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Spain. ZooFari 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's full FOP in spain. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Spain. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Spain. ZooFari 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://sites.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/em/souslesetoilesexactement/index.php?id=53354 Hegor (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Original is copyrighted and not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is this in France or Germany? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's Berlin per cat Category:Élysée Treaty memorial (Berlin-Tiergarten). Trycatch (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep yep, Berlin - so it's FOP --axel (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Part of mass nomination by user with no knowlege of FOP. User has been notified and should have withdrawn this. Pls speedy close. --Elekhh (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep +1 -- Niteshift (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep FOP-DE ( and which architect do you mean?),--Gerardus (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep FOP Germany applies. --Elekhh (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly in germany. FOP applies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Poland has Freedom of Panorama. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Another frivolous request from this user. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
poor quality, no perm, no lic, not used, personal rights! Nolispanmo 09:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted image Cratón (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Copyvio. Screen capture. No evidence that uploader is Rob Reiner. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Looks like a screen capture of a show. This is a copyvio. Techman224Talk 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
No fair use on Commons, but claim of fair use alongside "PD-textlogo" claim. Looks more like fair use to me, but I'm not familiar with deletion requests. --TFCforever (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Not PD-textlogo, IMO. A review of the other crests uploaded by the user with the PD-textlogo template would also be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete, PD-Textlogo does not apply here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file violates the copyright. The covers of films, plays, musicals, among others, are not acceptable on commons. And it seems to be lowered of a website and the license is not adequate. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Clearly a screengrab of a TV broadcast. Copyright status unclear, likely not free. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was built in 1860 and destroyed in 1831. In the 1990s it was rebuilt according to original plans. Copyright on the building never existed as per {{PD-RUS-Empire}}. --russavia (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Pictures of buildings located in public places don't need the copyright in countries with freedom of panorama (see en:Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works). US have this freedom. Russia hasn't this freedom if reproduction is the primary goal, but Commons use the US law. The picture was made by a friend of mine and granted to me with no restrictions on further use. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Commons follow copyrights law of country of origins and USA. Cathedral located in Russia. However architect Константин Тон died in 1881 . --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in United Arab Emirates. Look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates Luispihormiguero Any problem?
17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC) - Keep No architectural design detail visible, only the structure. Images of construction works of the Burj were all kept per previous consensus (see top of Category:Construction of Burj Khalifa). --Elekhh (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
_(290165442).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Konrad_Adenauer.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(290165442).jpg){kind=link}
_(290165442).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Konrad_Adenauer.JPG){kind=link}
_Konrad_Adenauer.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Konrad_Adenauer.JPG){kind=link}
_Konrad_Adenauer.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. ZooFari 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FOP violation. Mass deletion request page here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Burj_Khalifa [chinneeb|talk] 11:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed to keep discussion in one place. Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
suspected copyvio, several other copyvio aircraft photos from this user Benchill (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Advertising for Keronite Wizard191 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader took this image whilst performing, and image is watermarked; an OTRS ticket would be required here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Only used for blatant spam at en:Phanimadhavkasturi. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This file copyright violation. The covers of films, theater, among others, are not acceptable on commons. And it seems to be lowered of a website and the license is not adequate. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
--GeorgHH • talk 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Invalid License. This image is a scanned/photographed version of an old image. No source specified Vssun (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Statue in the U.S. from 1987. No COM:FOP for statues in the U.S. and not nearly in public domain. Wknight94 talk 03:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Logo of Dhaka Univercity Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Logo University of Dhaka Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Dhaka university logo Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Logo of bangladesh polotical party Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The new church is a copy of the old church, without threshold of originality --Haneburger (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was built in 1860 and destroyed in 1831. In the 1990s it was rebuilt according to original plans. Copyright on the building never existed as per {{PD-RUS-Empire}}. --russavia (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was built in 1860 and destroyed in 1831. In the 1990s it was rebuilt according to original plans. Copyright on the building never existed as per {{PD-RUS-Empire}}. --russavia (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is unbelievable. In this case many other pictures of this Cathedral should be deleted as well. And where is the freedom of panorama ? -- Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was built in 1860 and destroyed in 1831. In the 1990s it was rebuilt according to original plans. Copyright on the building never existed as per {{PD-RUS-Empire}}. --russavia (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is unbelievable. In this case many other pictures of this Cathedral should be deleted as well. And where is the freedom of panorama ? -- Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright duration is generally linked to the date of death of the author. Incidentaly the architect of the Grande Arche died prior to the completion of the building. --Elekhh (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Borderline case. No single building is in the center of the image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All buildings are copyrighted and the skyline is clearly the subject of the image. Note: the subject of a photograph is not always, and indeed should often not be, in the centre of the image. Rama (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Rama's above argument "the skyline is clearly the subject of the image" a clear de minimis. --Elekhh (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Grande Arche is very prominent in this image. Previously, photos which included the Arche in this manner have been deleted. 67.80.214.27 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather call it borderline: most prominent is the public space, than the skyline and only third by importance l'Arche, which occupies less than 10% of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The man in the red coat is de minimis, the carousel is de minimis, but there are two major architectural objects in the image that are not de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
built after 1990. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was built in 1860 and destroyed in 1831. In the 1990s it was rebuilt according to original plans. Copyright on the building never existed as per {{PD-RUS-Empire}}. --russavia (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
A statue in Arizona apparently from 1967. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and 1967 not nearly public domain. Wknight94 talk 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Statue in Arizona by Susan Kliewer. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and Susan Kliewer is still alive (and actively selling artwork) so clearly not in the public domain. Wknight94 talk 12:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is the image of a film poster and hence falls under Non-free fair use. Sreejith K (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
An unreference chart that is useless due to its vagueness. The chart doesn't state what wear test is being used. Wizard191 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Corporate logo used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Corporate logo used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 16:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned Vanity Photo, Low Quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 16:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Hornsteinar arkitektar and danish architekts Schmidt, Hamnmer & Lassen (SHL). Fingalo (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Hornsteinar arkitektar and danish architekts Schmidt, Hamnmer & Lassen (SHL). Fingalo (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Hornsteinar arkitektar and danish architekts Schmidt, Hamnmer & Lassen (SHL). Fingalo (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Hornsteinar arkitektar and danish architekts Schmidt, Hamnmer & Lassen (SHL). Fingalo (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a detail of a portrait made by WG Hofker, who died in 1981. Painting isn't in the public domain yet. Ronn (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A poor-quality image that, judging by its description, was uploaded primarily for advertising. Not used at any WMF wiki, and not likely to be in scope. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Margrét Harðardóttir: * 1959. Fingalo (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 2 September 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) 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Sigurður Guðmundsson (died 1958) og Eiríkur Einarsson (died 1951). Fingalo (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"OTRS pending" since February 2009, likely out of scope. Trycatch (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Maggi Jónsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a copyrightable masterpiece of architecture. It is merely a functional building. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The Law is clear. Fingalo (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright does not require that an architectural work be beautiful or a masterpiece, only that it be original. The only grounds for keeping this would be:
- permission from the architect, or
- proof that it was a copy of a work that was PD in Iceland.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The photo does NOT depict the person in question (confirmed with the official fanclub). Zureks (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then add a {{rename|<Correct person>.jpg}} and if possible provide a link to documentation. --MGA73 (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not easy. Can you identify this person among these guys? I can't. He may be, for example, w:Maciej Bodnar, I don't know. Trycatch (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The photo does NOT depict the person in question (confirmed with the official fanclub). Zureks (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you should ask Sławek from Flickr about that. Yarl ✉ 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The error was actually pointed out on the Polish Wikipedia by two independent readers - hence confirmation from the fanclub was sought after. This is not the first mistake by Sławek (who was notified btw). --Zureks (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, in this situation Delete. Yarl ✉ 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, in this situation
- The error was actually pointed out on the Polish Wikipedia by two independent readers - hence confirmation from the fanclub was sought after. This is not the first mistake by Sławek (who was notified btw). --Zureks (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This file violates the copyright, the posters and ads are not acceptable in commons. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is part of a poster of a non-profit organization that announces a festival village, --Josepmunoz (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The fact that it was created by a non-profit does not change its copyright. The upload is copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:GAWG patch large.jpg
- File:NER Civil Air Patrol Schweizer SGS-233A.jpg
- File:OQU w.jpg
- File:PAWG Encampment 2008 Bay.jpg
- File:Richmond Airport (08R) western view.jpg
- File:Sikorsky S39 (CAP).jpg
_western_view.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There are only few files left that use this template. It is doubtful that authors of those files were US government employees. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force Auxiliary for previous discussion. - Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality. Out of focus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
An unreference chart that is useless due to its vagueness. The chart doesn't state what the x axis represents. Wizard191 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Doesn't seem useful. Rocket000 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
copyvio; Commons:Derivative works Otourly (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not only is it a DW, but the Flicker user isn't the artist. Rocket000 (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa, no Freedom of Panorama in UAE. --ZooFari 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete if it is possible, move to Wikipedia, per nominator. Tbhotch (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- and all the ble links of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa Tbhotch (talk)
built after 1940. the architect has the copyright. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Duquesne Incline from top.jpg.GrapedApe (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Geagea: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Duquesne Incline from top.jpg
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Sigurður Guðmundsson (died 1958) og Eiríkur Einarsson (died 1951). Fingalo (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This file is an inferior duplicate of File:CapitolLoop.svg. Both are based on Capitol Loop Reopening Fact Sheet by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The PNG is inferior in two ways: the shades of green and blue are not the correct shades specified in the Manual on Urban Traffic Control Devices. Secondly, the blue background from the PDF should not appear on the marker. The SVG has been redrawn to correct these flaws. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request; file is not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This file is an inferior duplicate of File:CapitolLoop.svg. Both are based on Capitol Loop Reopening Fact Sheet by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The PNG is inferior in two ways: the shades of green and blue are not the correct shades specified in the Manual on Urban Traffic Control Devices. Secondly, the blue background from the PDF should not appear on the marker. The SVG has been redrawn to correct these flaws. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request; file is not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Building right (Kazan train station) was designed by Shchusev who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is a street, not a building. The train station is of secondary importance. Street scenes are exempt from the FOP ban. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also, the nominator has been acting in bad faith for several weeks now nominating over a hundred images for deletion - many of which have been here for years, and in spite of being informed by others that group nominations should be discussed as a whole and not individually like this. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is the square and not the station which is only a minor part of the image. --Iotatau (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The station falls under the doctrine of de minimis because it is only a minor part of the image. --Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...and if somebody crops to the station building only (the red tower), because adaptation is allowed in the license, then it is no longer de minimis. --Fernrohr (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is no problem at Commons as long as nobody attempts to upload such a infringing crop. We have the same problem in other cases as well. Please consider, for example, the cases of the pyramid in front of the Louvre or the Eiffel tower by night. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...and if somebody crops to the station building only (the red tower), because adaptation is allowed in the license, then it is no longer de minimis. --Fernrohr (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep To quote from Article 21 of the Russian copyright law (emphasis mine):
- The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.
- As the copyrighted work is just a minor part of this photograph, we have no infringement, even if this photograph is used for commercial purposes. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article 21 is no longer valid ([1]). Article 1276 of Civil Law ([2]), which is some years younger, says "or", i.e. the publication is not possible if either the copyrighted work is a major part of the photo, or it is used for commercial purposes. --Fernrohr (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This one borders with vandalism. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, de minimis (the station is not the main subject of the photograph, otherwise this would violate FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment reason is actually given. Sadly, the permission given is too ambiguous. Trycatch (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
suspected copyvio, several other copyvio aircraft photos from this user Benchill (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Non-free historic image. This is a photograph of the space station Mir in one of her early configurations. Given that this was taken in 1987, and the station was deorbited in 2001, its not replaceable and certainly historic, but, given that the copyright for any images taken by the Soviet space programme is owned by the current Russian government, its fair use. Whilst I realise this should mean that it be speedily deleted, and I did, in fact, initially list it as such, the fact that it is used on so many articles across various projects made me pause, because those projects could, like I have for en-wiki, upload a local copy as fair use, but if the file disappears from here they may not be able to find it again, so I'm unsure how to proceed. Colds7ream (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it was also uploaded under the wrong file extension originally - the source file is a jpg. Colds7ream (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image is not yet in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect license tag. It sould be PD-old or so Vssun (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Alexey Dushkin
[edit]- Train station Simferopol:
- Train station Sochi
- File:Sochi_Train_Station.jpg
- File:Sochi_Train_Station_statue.jpg - sculpture, not undeleted
- File:Sochi_train_station_palmtree.jpg
- Train station Dnipropetrovsk Note: Dnipropetrovsk is in Ukraine, not in Russia
- File:Dnipropetrovsk Railway Station.jpg - not undeleted, still no FOP in Ukraine
- File:Vokzal_dnepropetrovsk.jpg - ditto
- Subway station Ploshchad Revolyutsii in Moscow
- File:Ploshchad Revolyutsii Barry Kent.JPG
- File:Ploshchad revolyutsii Metro 2010.jpg
- File:Plrev-mm.jpg - redundant to the one above, not undeleted
- Skyscraper in Moscow
- Subway station Novoslobodskaya in Moscow
- File:Novoslobodskaya-mm.jpg
- File:Novoslobodskaya Old 1.jpg - doubtful copyright, not undeleted
- File:Novoslobodskaya Old 3.jpg - ditto
- File:Novoslobodskaya Station.jpg
- File:Novoslobodskaya.jpg - low-res dupe, not undeleted
- Subway station Avtozavodskaya in Moscow
- Subway station Kropotkinskaya in Moscow
- File:KrapotkinskayaStation.JPG - file redirect, not undeleted
- File:Moscow-Metro-Kropotkinskaya-1647.jpg
- File:Gogolevsky 0 Subway Apr 2009 03.JPG
- File:Kropotkinskaya 01-1.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya 01.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya 02-1.JPG
- File:Kropotkinskaya 02.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya Old 3.jpg - doubtful copyright, not undeleted
- File:Kropotkinskaya Old 2.jpg - ditto
- File:Kropotkinskaya Old 1.jpg - ditto
- File:Kropotkinskaya 04.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya 03.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya Old 4.jpg - doubtful copyright, not undeleted
- File:Kropotkinskaya Old 5.jpg - ditto
- File:Kropotkinskaya stantion.JPG
- File:Kropotkinskaya station.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya.jpg - low-res dupe, not undeleted
- File:Kropotkinskaya2.jpg
- File:Kropotkinskaya3.jpg
- Subway station Mayakovskaya in Moscow
- File:Mayakovskaya Metro Moscow.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya Old 4.jpg - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:Mayakovskaya after renewing 2010.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya 1.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya 2006.JPG
- File:Mayakovskaya Old 2.jpg - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:Mayakovskaya 5.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya 4.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya Old 3.jpg - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:Mayakovskaya.jpg
- File:Mayakovskaya st.JPG
- File:Moscow Metro lighting - Mayakovskaya.jpg
- Detskiy Mir department store in Moscow
These are images of architecturial works of en:Alexey Dushkin (who died in 1977). There is no FOP in Russia ([3]) nor Ukraine ([4]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([5]). Should be Category "Undelete in 2048/52" --Fernrohr (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand these images are FOP, so they can be share without the autor's permission. In other hand, this is a public work make by the government request and it's located in a public space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.60.116 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC+8)
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) 07:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - indeed, it's very inconvenient and regrettable, but a clear case. There are, by the way, still lots of buildings in Russia / former SU where the architect is dead for more than 70 years, and other sights (like mountains, rivers, other landscapes) that aren't a problem. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete The Russian law is clear. The following are not reasons to keep:
- Commons has not done a good job of enforcing it in the past -- we must start some time, now is better than later
- It is inconvenient -- it's also a nuisance in the USA, but we manage.
- No one will sue -- Commons policy is to honor copyright, not consider whether we could get away with it.
- Common sense. -- Many laws miss common sense by a wide margin.
We don't have to like it, but we must delete all of these. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - there is zero evidence that Russian courts are interpreting these laws in a way that would make a photo of any building a copyright violation. All we have are a couple of "wiki lawyers'" opinions. Without such evidence, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention alienating a lot of contributors, by deleting these images unnecessarily. What we need are some precedents or a couple of Russian lawyers (and yes, I know a few if that will help). Rklawton (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Provided the translation into English at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia is correct (which I assume, but don't know for sure, as I don't read Russian), I can't see how the law could be interpreted any other way, as the English text is pretty clear. It says that freedom of panorama doesn't apply if "portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction" (which is the case here - note, even if not commercially used) or "where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes" (even if not the basic object of the reproduction). As I read it, this doesn't allow images (commercial or non-commercial) of buildings in Russia that are still protected by copyright, and images of buildings that aren't central to the photograph only if used non-commercially, which is a restriction not accepted on Commons. But if you know Russian lawyers, it certainly would be helpful to hear from a lawyer whether Commons' translation is correct. However, I wouldn't expect more than a "non-commercial" FOP, at best, and Commons can't host images with such a restriction. Commercial use must be fully allowed. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What if the shooting in the subway is allowed by administration? --Иван Гриценко (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The question is not the shooting. The question is the publishing. Rklawton (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree this is regrettable but, as Jameslwoodward states, the situation is clear. Hekerui (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep I don't think it is necessarily that clear. See my comments at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Aleshina
including the language from the statute that apparently allows fair use. IleanaDU (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, IleanaDU, but you apparently do not understand Commons's requirements in two different ways:
- The statutes in most countries allow fair use. Commons does not allow it for the simple reason that a fair use rationale is specific to the context in which the image is used and Commons has no context.
- At Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina you say, "The law appears to presume that the work is permitted unless shown to be used for commercial purposes, such as the sale of postcards. Wikipedia is easily recognized as non-commercial." But Commons is here exactly so that someone can take a photograph from here and publish it as a postcard or use it in any other commercial way. Commons is absolutely not non-commercial. And, by the way, this is not Wikipedia, and our rules are very different. (The postcard example is well known to me -- one of my images from Commons has been published as a postcard).
- So, since we require both freedom to use commercially and freedom to use without a fair use rationale, the Russian lack of FOP is still clear and these images are still not permitted here. We do not have to like it, but we must delete them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is pure idiocy......... 72.208.97.129 01:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It's time to close this -- it has been open for three months. The arguments against deletion are, from top to bottom:
- There are many other images that must be deleted -- "a five-digit mass of photos." Yes, but we must start somewhere.
- "there is zero evidence that Russian courts are interpreting these laws...". That may be, but our policy explicitly rejects this, "Also, arguments that amount to “we can get away with it”, such as the following, run counter to Commons’ aims."
- That fair use is permitted. But Commons doesn't allow fair use.
- That Commons is not commercial use. But, actually, it is -- we require freedom for commercial use.
- "This is pure idiocy." Perhaps, but that can be corrected only by a change in the Russian law. Our firm policy is to obey the law.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded with error Soccer Base U K (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
upoad error Soccer Base U K (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Madonna of the Trail statues
[edit]Derivative works of statues by August Leimbach. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and Leimbach only died in 1965 so not in public domain. --Wknight94 talk 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Madonna-Albu-1.jpg
- File:Madonna Park in Albuquerque.jpg
- File:Madonna Detail.jpg
- File:Albuquerque Madonna.jpg
- File:Bethesda madonna 20090202 092303 1.2767x4150.jpg
- File:Lexington-madonnna.jpg
- File:Madonna-2.jpg
- File:Madonna-Council-Grove.jpg
- Keep {{PD-US-no notice}}
- File:Madonna-of-the-Trail-CO.jpg
- File:VandaliaStateHouse VandaliaIL.jpg
- Keep {{PD-US-no notice}}
- File:MadonnaOfSpringfieldOH.jpg
- File:MadonnaOfArizona72.jpg
- File:Madonna-usdot.jpg
- File:Madonna-of-the-Trail-Illino.jpg
- Installed in 1927-1929, likely {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no renewal}}. SIRIS states that these sculptures "copyrighted 1928". Have they been renewed in 1955-1957? Trycatch (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Two of these are not even noted as having been copyrighted: File:VandaliaStateHouse VandaliaIL.jpg [6] and File:Madonna-Council-Grove.jpg [7]. These would then qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}. For the rest, I was unable to find any online database of copyright renewals for statues (I found several for books, however). howcheng {chat} 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, scans of the most renewal records (not searchable, except music) could be found at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/: 1955, 1956, 1957. If I understand correctly, sculptures should be searched in "Artwork" section (for example renewal for Sleeping Thunder by Charles M. Russell is listed here). I can't find the renewals of these sculptures. (second check would be good, of course) Trycatch (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Two of these are not even noted as having been copyrighted: File:VandaliaStateHouse VandaliaIL.jpg [6] and File:Madonna-Council-Grove.jpg [7]. These would then qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}. For the rest, I was unable to find any online database of copyright renewals for statues (I found several for books, however). howcheng {chat} 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all. I've rechecked artworks renewals in 1955-1957, and I haven't find anything like a renewal for these sculptures. Trycatch (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- As the photographer for most of the Albuquerque statue photos I thank you for your efforts. I coud find no copyright markings on that statue when I took the photographs and I would presume either the Daughters of the American Revolution or Leimbach's estate would control the copyright. i would encourage listing them as no notice. --Wgfinley (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, statues are {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Author low D M.jpg
Cancer Survivors Park, Tennessee
[edit]Recent sculptures in Tennessee park. No COM:FOP in the United States and very unlikely to be public domain. COM:OTRS would be needed. --Wknight94 talk 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 02 sign.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 04 Ready for Flight.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 05 Ready for Flight.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 07 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 08 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 09 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 10 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 11 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 12 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 13 Cancer There s Hope.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 23 The Long Journey.jpg
- File:Cancer Survivors Park Memphis TN 26 The Good Stuff.jpg
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
All images in the category are derivative works of apparently copyrighted statues. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and these are pretty clearly not old enough to be public domain. --Wknight94 talk 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... The statue of liberty is out of copyright and can be considered a building, not a statue. So any reproductions thereof are buidlings, too ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- But the way they're colored seems to create a new copyright in my opinion. And colored with copyrighted baseball team logos - even worse. Wknight94 talk 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunatelly, I have to agree. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- But the way they're colored seems to create a new copyright in my opinion. And colored with copyrighted baseball team logos - even worse. Wknight94 talk 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reluctant delete As much as I want to keep this for historical purposes (as the original creator), and though I'm not sure the statues count as original pieces since they're based on the Statue of Liberty, I have to agree that being colored with copyrighted logos does create a problem. TheCatalyst31 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not believe that any of these passes the Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how any of the examples in your link are relevant. These are three-dimensional works of art not only colored with elaborate designs, but mostly with designs that would themselves be copyrighted. Which example are you saying relates? Wknight94 talk 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is quite obvious that the New York Yankees statues cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question - which examples of threshold of originality do you think pertain? You also didn't say which New York Yankees statue you were referring to, but I think both demonstrate quite a bit of creativity and originality. Even if not, how about the ones like File:Cleveland Indians Statue of Liberty.jpg and File:Pittsburgh Pirates Statue of Liberty.jpg and the numerous others which prominently feature logos which are fair use on en.wp? Wknight94 talk 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is not that obvious? The Copyright Office decisions about the Uncle Sam bank, about the American flag, about characters would make it rather hopeless to apply for copyright on the NY Yankees statues. And for the rest, there is the Commons admin decision on Rlevse's Valentine bear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not obvious at all, no. The three-dimensional Uncle Sam bank was almost identical to a 19th century three-dimensional bank. And the American flag example was apparently two-dimensional. The example here is a three-dimensional statue expertly colored in a way totally different to the original Statue of Liberty, and presumably different to how any Statue of Liberty replica has been colored before. w:File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg is fair use - certainly doing similar in three dimensions would be copyrightable. Wknight94 talk 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Wknight94. These statues are unique art with colors and designs, therefore a new copyright applies. Additionally some have copyrighted baseball team logos.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not empty Jcb (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete along with the herd of painted cows (Category:Statues of cows and its subs). When this painted fiberglass franchise started back in 90s it (probably) looked cool (to some) ... now it's ubiquitous sorry-ass kitsch, scaring patrons of every shopping mall around the world. Let them burn in hell along with Mickey Mouse. NVO (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - looks like nominator tried to reopen this, but individual images are still not listed and not tagged. If you nominate a category, the DR is about the category, not about the images in it. Also after 7 months, how can we be sure still the same images are in the category? - Jcb (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with you, Jcb. You see this a bit too mechanical. Wknight94 explicitely stated that this DR is about All images in the category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)