Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Die angegebene Webseite hier die archivierte Variante, sagt nicht über eine freie Bearbeitung aus. Typische Presse-Freigabe, aber keine Angabe für eine freie Lizenz! Paulae (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, license not free enough according to Commons' policies. Kameraad Pjotr 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not what templates are for. Appears to be spam. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as being promotional and out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep looks like she is notable: w:ru:Никонова, Виктория Павловна. Trycatch (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- good! in this case. vk! I did an google search (with the english name) and didn't find any hints for notability. I'll ask at the talk page if its her. Amada44 talk to me 07:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure she is w:ru:Никонова, Виктория Павловна, compare with other photograph of her: [1]. The uploader edited the article about her, and he is a professional painter by himself. Trycatch (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Susp. copyvio. Own work looks unlikely to me. --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Info also nominated File:Toni Gonzaga Aug2010.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Abusive sockpuppeteer stealing photographs related to this two singers. --Martin H. (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This file violates the copyright, as this image seems Internet down and the posters, caratulas, and others are not allowed in commons. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. -- Common Good (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Mistaken understanding of copyrights -Rodejong (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Copyright violation: per Overleg_gebruiker:Rodejong#Eigen_werk.3F_.281.29 thanks Kwiki
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Reasons for deletion request Mistaken understanding of copyrights-Rodejong (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Otourly: Copyright violation: Overleg_gebruiker:Rodejong#Eigen_werk.3F_.283.29
I fail to see any possible use for this image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No use on Commons. Techman224Talk 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image comes from a Flickr account listed here COM:QFI, I don't believe that their license is actually valid. Truu (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.--Trixt (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image comes from a Flickr account listed here COM:QFI, I don't believe that their license is actually valid. Truu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.--Trixt (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, found elsewhere on the web. Gunnex (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
For Pieter Kuiper to be the author of this 1976 photo he'd have to be over 45. I do not believe he is that old[2] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep He got his PhD in 1989 — he is very likely 50 now. There is no reason to assume that his claim of authorship of this photograph is false. I'm of a similar age and I can easily upload photographs shot by me from 1976 as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Pieter Kuiper should probably be flattered that you think him so youthful-looking (or whatever the link to his university page is meant to imply). It is probably not polite to discuss someone else's age, but there is no reason to doubt that he was old enough to take this picture in 1976. --Hegvald (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Haha. He is old enough to be the author. It almost looks like some kind of revenge from Nard. But I think everybody should accept to get their uploads looked into. Even sysops and higher wikigods. /Rrohdin (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep my photo; clearly some kind of personal DR, wasting community time, disruptive; by the way, there is no evidence for the license on File:Thunder (black cat).jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Amusingly enough, if you look at the file history, you can see her progress from my girlfriend to wife to ex-wife in the span of less than 2 years :D I don't know why I bothered to change it as the status changed... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nard, couldn't you consider to withdraw this DR? --AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes of course. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nard, couldn't you consider to withdraw this DR? --AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Withdrawn. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Corporate logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of subject (company?) with no notability as decided here fr:Kicho-World Label - out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused, which legend? Amada44 talk to me 08:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Logo is not simple enough to fall into the public domain. Quibik (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
User:190.189.61.156 posted on the file summary: "Antiguo Estadio ciudad de Lanús-Nestor Días Pérez.jpg La foto la sacaron de mi pagina sin permiso. Asi que es mentira la licencia de abajo. Pero mucho no me quejo porque la escanee de un suplemento del diario Ole de 1997 creo. y asi es Internet. Hoy me robas a mi, pero ayer yo le robé a otro y mañana otro nos roba a los dos." A part of it translates to: "This picture was taken off my website without permission, so the license below is a lie. But I don't want to complain much because I've scanned it from Ole newspaper from 1997, and that's the way Internet works." Diego Grez return fire 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
no cat, unused, no description, useless, etc.. Frédéric (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa, no Freedom of Panorama in UAE and shows completed design. --ZooFari 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa, no Freedom of Panorama in UAE and shows completed design. --ZooFari 00:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I have to say delete. The Burj Khalifa is a nice building, but there's no FOP in the UAE. Techman224Talk 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
much too small, and there are better thumbs Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Useless. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless, very small, bad description, no cat, etc Frédéric (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong structure: trivalent carbon attached to nitrogen Kurgus (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- delete. Clear mistake. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and its duplicate File:Schiffbase general structure.png. They are incorrect. Edgar181 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Chemical structure is wrong. ChemNerd (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Campione is an exclave of Italy in Switzerland. This photograph was taken on Swiss territory of an artwork on Italian territory. Switzerland has FOP. Italy does not. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If it's meant to be seen from Swiss territory, and taken from there, I say Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Although it may be a close thing, it appears that the photographer was actually inside the enclave, at 45°57′43.03″N 8°58′7.26″E / 45.9619528°N 8.9686833°E for the first photo and at 45°57′42.61″N 8°58′6.97″E / 45.9618361°N 8.9686028°E for the others. No FOP in Italy applies. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Corporate logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Typical fair use 'license' at the source (reuse of the article only allowed with indication of the source) - not free content. Martin H. (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Zmieniono. Farary (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The uploader has never been able to explain clearly what it was nor to be clear about the authorship (see here for my messages and here for his answers in French). I therefore tend to think it's useless (how is it connected to the movie Le Temps retrouvé???) and potentially a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
rotated version of File:Tower St. Chrischona schmal.jpg, no enzyklopedic use possible Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. -- smial (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Exactly, --AM (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It's not clear why this strange image (a tower on its side) is in use, but it is not up to us to figure out why one of the Wikis uses an image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Converted from speedy which read: "No need for this picture which is just rotated 90 degrees right to File:Tower St. Chrischona schmal.jpg" --Wladyslaw
The file is in use, albeit in a very minor way. I think our policy is that any use, even a very minor one, is reason to keep, but Wladyslaw reverted my removal of his {{Speedy}}, so I brought it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Incomprehensible request. Still used in a project, legally allowed use. What is the problem with this file? -- smial (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep I'm surprised at this request. Why should a used pic be deleted? For which reasons? --AM (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No need to bring it to DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The picture is not in use ant it was never used for a encyclopaedic matter. No need to keep this picture. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Service: Image is part of a user's contribution, which is located at an archived discussion page. Three minutes before taxiarchos' voting here it was removed by an IP. -- smial (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing contrary to what I already said. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clear delete. No possible real use and a duplicate image rendered useless. The only "use" is in a user's private gallery, which does not qualify as a use. The only acceptable "uses" are in encyclopedic pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Rima, this is not a phallus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a free licensed image which an a Wikimedian uses in their user page. Unless there is some major other contrary factor, that alone should be enough. User appears to be currently very active in de:W as well as a useful contributor here on Commons. I see no reason why it should be considered necessary to take this image away from them. What are we trying to say? "Evidence of your sense of humor or enjoyment of silliness is visible on your own user space, and THAT IS NOT ALLOWED AND MUST BE DELETED"? Sheesh. I draw the attention of those favoring deletion to the quote at the user's Commons page User:Smial and suggest they contemplate this deletion request in that light. --Infrogmation (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - in use - Jcb (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
taken from http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=723430&contrassID=2&subContrassID=2&sbSubContrassID=0 Ravit (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No fair use here, Not simple enough to be inelligible DieBuche (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - its legitimate use for reference purposes - the individual images it was composed of are here as well. grouping and categorisation is whats done to them already. now they are grouped and categorized in a graphical way. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
- "For reference purposes" is a Fair Use claim and we don't have Fair Use here.
- The individual images are not here as far as I can tell.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
not notable (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hp-solan-002.jpg); also no permission via otrs Isderion (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in the US for statues. fetchcomms☛ 19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in the US for statues. fetchcomms☛ 19:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Patrice77 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Duplicate Upload. Original Picture is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nsg_unteres_warnowland2.jpg.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image of dubious copyright: Web resolution image, professional-looking crop and angle, uploaded by a user currently blocked for massive copyright violations. Said user was warned in 2008 that this image was suspicious.GrapedApe (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, some time ago I was planning on nominating this user's contributions, but I never got around to it. This user has gone to the point that we shouldn't assume good faith anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused logo of this quintet File:FOTO KWINTET 2 geknipt.JPG; this group has no notability or article in nl or other wiki projects - their logo has no foreseeable use so I am nominating it as being out of scope; however, I will not nominate the quintet's photo, as it illustrates any Category:Clarinet Quintet Santosga (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The English language version of Çeşme's website states "All texts' and pictures' rights on this website are reserved. Re-printing, distribution, used in real or electronic media is subject to permission." No evidence of permission. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Also nominated:
- File:Eu strasbourg b6dn202 1652.jpg
- File:Eu strasbourg b6dn202 1669.jpg
- File:Eu strasbourg b6dn202 1676.jpg
- File:Eu strasbourg b6dn202 1806.jpg
This is a French building. Freedom of Panorama in France may not be enough, but the uploader states that "European Union, Louise Weiss, Strasbourg. Taken when invited by EU as a journalist, so at least interiors are FOP" Belgrano (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Freedom of panorama is a special law article that does not exist in France. FOP is neither given by invitation nor does it exist for inside views in any of the countries I know. The Copyright owner is not the EU but Architecture Studio, Paris. There is no plausible reason to assume those guys have given a free license. --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
Neutral I think that images with views that are only visible from within the building are borders cases because I think the territory of an EU institution is somewhat extraterritorial to the host country's territory. Maybe we should ask a French copyright laywer about this. --ALE! ¿…? 06:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG for discussion of extraterritoriality and what it means for an embassy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is the copyright owner, or of release by the photographer. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.62.200.247 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
BoyetDamot comment: What is FoP? Are UAE residents banned from taking photographs of the Burj Al Arab?
“FoP” is an abbreviation for “freedom of panorama”. --84.61.172.89 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. In almost all countries architecture is copyrighted. In some countries, but not the USA or the UAE, photographs of architecture are permitted under a rule called "Freedom of Panorama". In countries without FOP, you can take photographs of modern buildings for your personal use, but may not publish or sell them, which conflicts with Commons requirements. See Commons:FOP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The eligibility for being copyrighted depends on originality. A computer generated message that simply summarizes facts has no originality. Compare this with the phone book case. Let me quote from the decision: Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed as per above. Limideen (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept per consensus. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Author not properly attributed. No proof of permission. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Omaha-beach-cemetery-monument.jpg
- File:Barack Obama speaks at Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial 2009-06-06.JPG
- File:CimetièreUS monument.JPG
- File:Collevile pomnik.jpg
- File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial 2008 1.JPG
- File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial chapel.jpg
- File:Statues du parc.jpg
- File:Un groupe de jeunes.jpg
No FOP in France. The cemetary may have no American government copyright interest, and was published without US copyright notice, but French law does not allow natural artists to be stripped of their term of protection for their works. Interesting question then: Which copyright law prevails at this American exclave in France? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified the relevant talk page on en.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the american law applies on this american terrirory. For example for taxes. TCY (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- And the whole thing was built by the U.S. Government (American Battle Monuments Commission), the buildings were designed by an American firm, and the sculptor was an American (Donald De Lue). This seems like a stretch. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Anyways, for U.S. copyright anyways, even if it was privately owned, everything would have needed to have a copyright notice, *and* have been renewed (built in 1949 I think; records are online here now, so it's possible to search). And the URAA would not apply to them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are the cemeteries American territory? Because, if it were British war graves, it would have been British territory, but I don't know if this is the same for American cemeteries. Kameraad Pjotr 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like to see more evidence for the proposition that because the US Government paid for the war cemetery, it is regarded as US territory and exempt from French law. If that were the case, the French police could not take action against a person who murdered someone at the cemetery, and that person would have to be extradited to the US to stand trial. This seems a startling suggestion to me. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have seen several comments to that effect on the web (Google search on "American territory in France"), but not found anything concrete. The land has been given to or is owned by the U.S. government, and they maintain it. I suspect that for honorary reasons it may be called that, and it may be that they are actual exemptions from lots of aspects of local law, but I would also guess there are limits to that (as you note above). Not found anything concrete at all though regarding legal status. "Country of origin" may be very difficult to determine as well -- they were designed in the U.S. in concert with the government -- which means that plans, diagrams, and other forms of "copies" may have been made public there first. The statue was manufactured in Italy. If considered "published" in the U.S., then if public domain in the U.S. they would also be public domain in France anyways (rule of the shorter term), though that wouldn't matter for Commons anyways as "country of origin" would also be U.S. At least one of the images nominated above though comes right from the U.S. government web page, whey they explicitly state things are public domain. While they may not have thought about the technicalities of derivative works and all that, this nomination still seems pretty far out on the edge -- lots and lots of very reasonable doubts to the original statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my point. Just because the government of Redland owns a piece of immovable property in Blueland, that does not mean the property suddenly becomes a little piece of Redland and that all of Blueland's laws cease to apply on the property. There must be a Blueland statute that specifically exempts certain acts taking place on the property from Blueland's laws, such as a statute conferring diplomatic immunity. Laws conferring diplomatic immunity generally don't deal with copyright issues. Another thought: wouldn't a concept like "country of origin" be defined in some European Union directive? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Country of origin" is defined in the Berne Convention, generally as the country of first publication. Not an easy thing to determine in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my point. Just because the government of Redland owns a piece of immovable property in Blueland, that does not mean the property suddenly becomes a little piece of Redland and that all of Blueland's laws cease to apply on the property. There must be a Blueland statute that specifically exempts certain acts taking place on the property from Blueland's laws, such as a statute conferring diplomatic immunity. Laws conferring diplomatic immunity generally don't deal with copyright issues. Another thought: wouldn't a concept like "country of origin" be defined in some European Union directive? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have seen several comments to that effect on the web (Google search on "American territory in France"), but not found anything concrete. The land has been given to or is owned by the U.S. government, and they maintain it. I suspect that for honorary reasons it may be called that, and it may be that they are actual exemptions from lots of aspects of local law, but I would also guess there are limits to that (as you note above). Not found anything concrete at all though regarding legal status. "Country of origin" may be very difficult to determine as well -- they were designed in the U.S. in concert with the government -- which means that plans, diagrams, and other forms of "copies" may have been made public there first. The statue was manufactured in Italy. If considered "published" in the U.S., then if public domain in the U.S. they would also be public domain in France anyways (rule of the shorter term), though that wouldn't matter for Commons anyways as "country of origin" would also be U.S. At least one of the images nominated above though comes right from the U.S. government web page, whey they explicitly state things are public domain. While they may not have thought about the technicalities of derivative works and all that, this nomination still seems pretty far out on the edge -- lots and lots of very reasonable doubts to the original statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment it is not an exclave (unlike Gibraltar which is a UK exclave in Spain). Because if it were, tourists would need to show their passport each time they want to visit that cemetery, and tourists from countries like Russia would need a US visa. And French workers working there would need a Green Card. Teofilo (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure it's quite that simple -- embassies are considered legal territory of that nation, and I'm pretty sure don't require passports to visit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can see that special rules may apply to consulates and embassies, but we are talking about war cemeteries here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There at least was apparently a 1935 treaty between Canada/France/Germany/UK/India/South Africa/Australia/New Zealand granting certain rights to a British Commission over cemeteries in Germany; no idea if that or similar treaties are still in force but it is definitely possible. Not the same thing as "sovereign territory" but it definitely clouds the issue, as they may well be exempt from some portion of French law. Also, it is far from clear that the "country of origin" is France anyways. There is another copy of the sculpture at Brookgreen Gardens[3], which is signed but has no copyright notice[4], so it would seem to be definitely PD in the United States (which may well be the country of origin as well). The SIRIS site has an entry on the actual statue in Normandy[5] but it doesn't mention any inscriptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Just wanted to observe that the most relevant statement in the 1935 treaty appears in Article 3, which provides that the Imperial War Graves Commission "are authorized to lay out and maintain the said cemeteries in accordance with their own principles of treatment and to exercise the internal regulation and control of them". However, "internal regulation and control" of a war cemetery is quite different from an assertion that the laws of the jurisdiction in which the war cemetery is located do not apply at all to the cemetery grounds. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. But to what extent do they apply? Although frankly... in this case I'm probably more persuaded by the fact that these are American works, not French. If it was the work of a French sculptor, the situation would feel different to me. But it's not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There at least was apparently a 1935 treaty between Canada/France/Germany/UK/India/South Africa/Australia/New Zealand granting certain rights to a British Commission over cemeteries in Germany; no idea if that or similar treaties are still in force but it is definitely possible. Not the same thing as "sovereign territory" but it definitely clouds the issue, as they may well be exempt from some portion of French law. Also, it is far from clear that the "country of origin" is France anyways. There is another copy of the sculpture at Brookgreen Gardens[3], which is signed but has no copyright notice[4], so it would seem to be definitely PD in the United States (which may well be the country of origin as well). The SIRIS site has an entry on the actual statue in Normandy[5] but it doesn't mention any inscriptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are they ? fr:Ambassade says L'extraterritorialité des ambassades est une fiction juridique abandonnée au XIXe siècle : extraterritoriality of embassies is a legal fiction abandoned in the 19th century. That means that if a murder is commited inside the US embassy in Paris in the 21st century, the murderer will be sued by a French judge and French law will apply to that case. See also this article about the Swiss ambassy in Libya (where Libyan law applies, although the Libyan police cannot enter). That's the difference between extraterritorialité and inviolabilité. Teofilo (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, that appears correct. There is a Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which defines the limitations. But obviously there are significant restrictions on local law. And there may well be treaties for cemeteries too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can see that special rules may apply to consulates and embassies, but we are talking about war cemeteries here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure it's quite that simple -- embassies are considered legal territory of that nation, and I'm pretty sure don't require passports to visit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- On article fr:Cimetière américain de Suresnes (the US, mostly WWI, cemetery in Paris) I quoted "Le terrain a été « concédé gratuitement à perpétuité par le peuple français »" from the information panel there. That translates : "the land has been perpetually conceded, for free, by the French people". It seems to be the same wording as "concession perpetuelle" enjoyed by some families for the graves of their relatives in the local cemetery in their town, while other families only buy a less expensive concession for 30 or 50 years. A cemetery concession is different from full land ownership because you are not supposed to do anything else than build a grave and the land owner remains that town's administration. Some legal details can be found below "Définir la concession" in this article. Teofilo (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- But, again, transferring ownership of land to someone (even a foreign individual or government) does not equate to the laws of the country ceasing to apply to the property. I think we need more assistance here. At present, we simply don't know whether any special laws apply to war cemeteries on French soil. Is this an issue that the Foundation legal counsel Mike Godwin can help with? Or is there an expert we can consult on the matter? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all true. I don't think we should apply U.S. law only because it's on a cemetery. But this is diverting the discussion away... why would France be the country of origin in the first place? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Berne treaty says that the country of origin for architectural works is the country where the building is built (there is no "first published" consideration for buildings) and that provision extends to the artworks which are embodied within the building (sculpted reliefs, painted frescos, I guess). Article 5-c-ii : when these are works of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country. Teofilo (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I was mainly concentrating on the sculpture. (I don't think the rest qualifies as a "building" under U.S. law though; it is not meant for human occupancy; though that may be irrelevant here technically). Furthermore, there was a French court case which said that taking pictures of the entire Louvre plaza was fine, even though there was a copyrightable building right in the middle -- nobody should have a right to claim derivative works on photos of the entire complex. If a photo is focusing in on a particular aspect, that may be different, but from the photos shown above only the statue would seem to be an issue in a couple of them. [The map diagram is a separate case... that is interesting, as it could be considered PD-USGov.] Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Berne treaty says that the country of origin for architectural works is the country where the building is built (there is no "first published" consideration for buildings) and that provision extends to the artworks which are embodied within the building (sculpted reliefs, painted frescos, I guess). Article 5-c-ii : when these are works of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country. Teofilo (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of File:Un_groupe_de_jeunes.jpg, the file name shows that the photographer's purpose is to show the children, and the sculpture is quite small in comparison to the size of the whole picture. So I won't object if people want to keep this file as "de minimis" at least for the sculpture. For the architecture, the size is bigger, but that architecture is behind the children so it is clearly a background but I am unsure if this is enough to consider that the architecture is "de minimis" too. Concerning File:Statues du parc.jpg, the file name, and the absence of interesting things to see on the picture except the sculptures means quite clearly that "de minimis" cannot apply in that case. Teofilo (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, missed File:Statues du parc.jpg -- agree with you there. If those were done by French sculptors, I think I'd side on delete. There remains a good possibility that they are stock sculptures done by American firms, meaning they could well be PD also. But I haven't found any documentation on those (but haven't looked much). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of File:Un_groupe_de_jeunes.jpg, the file name shows that the photographer's purpose is to show the children, and the sculpture is quite small in comparison to the size of the whole picture. So I won't object if people want to keep this file as "de minimis" at least for the sculpture. For the architecture, the size is bigger, but that architecture is behind the children so it is clearly a background but I am unsure if this is enough to consider that the architecture is "de minimis" too. Concerning File:Statues du parc.jpg, the file name, and the absence of interesting things to see on the picture except the sculptures means quite clearly that "de minimis" cannot apply in that case. Teofilo (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've sent Mike Godwin an e-mail to see if he will weigh in on this discussion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- fr:Cimetière américain de Colleville-sur-Mer says Le territoire du cimetière est une concession perpétuelle faite par la France aux États-Unis, comme il est d'usage pour tous les cimetières militaires relatifs aux deux guerres mondiales. Il ne bénéficie pas de l'extraterritorialité, citing this article (pdf) (French Army website), which says that US cemeteries in France are different from the US Guantanamo base (where US law applies, as the US supreme court confirmed recently for the issues concerning the prisoners sent there from Afghanistan) : While Guantanamo is similar to the French concession in Shanghai in the early 20th century, US cemeteries in France are considered as pieces of land in France, where the US government merely enjoys the status of private land owner. Teofilo (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment No FOP in the US either. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- No but the statue would appear to be PD (no copyright notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- No response from Mike Godwin to my e-mail, unfortunately. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- No but the statue would appear to be PD (no copyright notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
La photo représente un "groupe de jeunes visiteurs" qui rendaient un hommage collectif (sans que cette manifestation soit liée à un jour représentant un événement particulier).--René Dinkel (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in South Korea. However North Korea does have FOP. Oh the horror of conflicting laws. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, then, what exactly do you think poses a problem? The portion of the old barracks on the sides? Lacks originality, if you ask me. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd assume the building in the background - the author is standing in the south, so his picture would presumably be covered by southern FOP, which would grant it protection. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, taken from the south, so southern laws apply. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in South Korea. FOP in North Korea. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in South Korea. FOP in North Korea. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"Keep" Firstly, the image was taken from the North Korean side of the DMZ. It was therefore generated within North Korean jurisdiction. Which is a "yes" for FOP. But I would like to clarify the proposer's misinterpreation of the law in ROK. It states:
Although Section 32.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act (Consolidation), 30/12/1989 (06/12/1995), No. 3916 (No. 5015) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in public places, 32.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.14 as "the reproduction of works in a tangible form by means of printing, photographing, photocopying, sound or visual recording or other means."
This image is not on Wikimedia to sell reproduction copies. Typhoonchaser, who stated it was their own work, did not upload for commercial intent (as is stated by their usage license). The image is uploaded on Wikimedia Commons - which is "a database of 7,229,403 freely usable media files" - to be freely shared. If the image was reproduced for payment, Wikimedia would not benefit. The ROK law would only apply if Wikimedia was actually a business for profit (not a charitable foundation). It would therefore be liable for copyright infringement because it intentionally wanted to sell copies by charging for reproductions. Which is not the case. The ROK law states FOP is only illegal "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies. Wikimedia is not selling copies, they are free. The image, even though it was generated in North Korea making this a moot point, would therefore be protected under the first part of the South Korean act which permits any reproduction of non commercial use of such images. No one owns the images on Wikimedia so "the purpose of selling its copies" is completely redundant. The case is frivolous because the logic being used by Nard would mean the removal of every South Korean image on this site. Why choose this one, which incidentally was taken in North Korea? Remove the deletion tag. 86.171.99.9 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum. Reading Wikipedia's own ruling on such matter bearing in mind that the U.S. does not have an FOP statute. Fair use provision (does not apply to content held on Wikimedia Commons). Warning. Some content on Wikimedia servers is not available under a free license, particularly certain images on the English Wikipedia. Much of this is under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Before reusing such content yourself, you should check that your planned use of the material is consistent with the fair use, fair dealing or equivalent provisions of locally applicable copyright law or you obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. This is no different from grabbing an image from anywhere else on the web. Exactly!! The image Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg is being used for non commercial purposes, it is not being advertised for sale as a paid-for downloadable image which would infringe ROK copyright law.86.171.99.9 13:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, taken from the North, so Northern laws (and freedom of panorama) apply. Kameraad Pjotr 21:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. William Artis died 1977, and there is no indication this sculpture counts as "published" such that it would lose copyright protection under American law. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - NARA says that this is unrestricted; the image had probably been published by the Harmon Foundation. Nard the Bard is trying to cast doubt on the opinions of the experts at NARA just because he wants to nominate some images uploaded by me; this DR has no merit and is a waste of the community's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification please -- does being published by the national archives imply PD? Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment NARA says the photograph is unrestricted. It offers no opinion as to the underlying rights of the sculptor. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- For an artwork of that period to enjoy copyright protection in the US, it must be either (a) unpublished, or (b) published with notice and copyright registration (some authors went to that extreme). To know what the case is, a determination must be made when and where the work was on public display, whether people were allowed to take unrestricted pictures, etc. What publications it was first published in, etc etc. The legal default is a work that is apparently mobile such as this one would be considered unpublished. That status may be different if in fact it was kept for long periods of time in a single display. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- The National Archives made a determination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There's no evidence that the statue is out of copyright, nor any evidence that who ever labeled the photo as out of copyright considered the issue. He was not an employee of the government and there is no evidence this was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- So what are you saying? That NARA does not consider copyright when it says that the photo is unrestricted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The OWI often reprinted copyrighted works with permission, as for example the Four Freedoms by Norman Rockwell. This did not make them US government works ineligible for copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does anyone, by any chance, know what the text in the lower right says? That would probably clarify it if it could be read. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to say: "Painted by the distinguished American artist Thomas Benton." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Whether it was eligible or not does not matter, as the Office of Government Reports printed this without a copyright symbol with Benton's permission. Anyway, NARA says this is unrestricted, and Nard the Bard's series of DR's is just a waste of time of the community. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to have been a copyright registration for this. Withdrawn. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Date and circumstances of first publication not indicated. There is no way to prove the license. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- The source of the picture shows clearly, that this picture is taken 1961 or 1962 before awarded to the Nobel Prize. See tag: "Morgue 1962-11". Also some search into the Web shows clearly this fits to his age and is before 1977 as given in the requirements. So a delete is not recommended. Rjh (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR, where Nard the Bard had supported to keep this image; the only reason he nominated it again is that it was in my gallery (as a reupload); disruptive trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in South Korea. FOP in North Korea. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep obvious keep than. -Elekhh (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images on the source Flickr profile are promotional images from adidas, and they're marked "rights belong to adidas". It seems the CC license doesn't apply. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From a suspect Flickr account. See: COM:QFI. No reason to believe license is valid. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - This image is probably protected by copyright and can not be used in the Commons. Truu (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
i want to upload again Mariag2010 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I want to delete and upload again with valid license Mariag2010 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just add the license tag now. No need to reupload, you have to edit the page and add the license on. fetchcomms☛ 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Maps of fictional places or locations
[edit]- File:Mapa-Faerun.png
- File:Nord-Ouest Féérune.png
- File:Riven-Jungle Island map.svg
- File:Riven-Map Island map.svg
- File:Riven-Temple Island map.svg
- File:Faerun political.png
- File:Riven-Crater Island map.svg
- File:Riven-Prison Island map.svg
- File:Kel-Tallas1.jpg
- Please also check Category:Star Wars maps. I don't think that someone from a personal website has the rights of this Star Wars franchise. --Kungfuman (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Possible more in this category and subcategories. I believe that this maps of this RPG and video games are derivative fan arts of copyrighted maps /map contents/geo data (re-drawings). Unlike maps of real exisiting places, this fictional data is copyrighted content and could only known from copyrighted contents (books). Same as deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Maps of Middle-earth --Kungfuman (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete these are derivative works of copyrighted role playing and video games. --rtc (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- keep all free work Bunnyfrosch (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- could you be more explicit about this? obviously they are derived from copyrighted works, why do you think that they are free? --Isderion (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to add File:Darkovermap-big-WP.jpg & File:Darkovermap-big-WP.svg (from en:Darkover) and (maybe) File:Eodora 968AR.jpg & File:Eodora regions.jpg & File:Eodora terrain.jpg (which is from another RPG but is pretty much shaped after Europe, so I am not too sure about that one). --Isderion (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- And this one File:Autremonde.png --Kungfuman (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced that all of these reach the standards of copyrightability, since you ARE allowed to describe a fictional setting, after all. I think these are better discussed on a case-by-case basis (or at least smaller groups), since some of them, such as File:Riven-Map_Island_map.svg are much, much simpler than others, and are thus much more likely not to be problematic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- "since you ARE allowed to describe a fictional setting" yes, if used in some encyclopedia article about the fictional thing (where not the description of the fictional thing is the main point, but critical analysis of the context of its invention takes place), then this is allowed, but only by the rules of fair use, which is forbidden here on Commons! And stand-alone pictures like these are not even fair use. --rtc (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
And following new uploads: --Kungfuman (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:LasVenturas-GTASA-detailedmap.jpg
- File:Bayside Map.jpg
- I delete this two ones, it is game screenshot. Others are not. ~ bayo or talk 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't the exemptions listed at Derivative_works#Maps apply here? If so, then the maps should be retained.—RJHall (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's talking about real-world maps. I'm not sure there even is any good case-law on maps like these.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- In that case the text does not make it clear it is talking about real world maps. The paragraph only talks about maps without mentioning the context.—RJHall (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It mentions derived from PD maps, which these can't be, and claims that certain features are facts, which is only true of real world maps. I thought the context was pretty clear, but you're welcome to bring it up on that talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- In that case the text does not make it clear it is talking about real world maps. The paragraph only talks about maps without mentioning the context.—RJHall (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- And this ones from a book: --Kungfuman (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Monde palladium.png
- File:Map of the Palladium world.png
- File:Mappa Equalia Glennascaul.jpg
- Comment There's a big difference between self-made maps and these copied ones. I'm for keeping the Riven maps, they are abstract and not modeled after existing maps and so simple they don't reach a level of copyright infringement, unlike the mere copies, like the Faerûn/D&D maps. Those should be deleted. Hekerui (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete File:Monde palladium.png and File:Map of the Palladium world.png: I created the 1st one (the 2nd is supposedly a copy), and at that time, I wasn't aware that the shape of the continent and the names of the countries were copyrighted content (2006, I was a young wikipedist). No opinion for the others. Cdang (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Move those that can be retained under fair use to Wikipedia.—RJHall (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are several new maps in Category:Forgotten Realms. I think all maps should be deleted. Also the Riven maps. They are not simple enough as they show explicit details/locations/roads/shape etc and/or hints for the video game. The only one which is very simple is Prison Island. But also this is copyrighted content and don't qualify for commons. --Kungfuman (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Khorinis.png derivative from video game Gothic --Kungfuman (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. However, this is my own work, based on the storyline and information materials. Canne provides complementary terms of the categories of Gothic I. I see no reason to remove it. Steifer (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. File:Khorinis.png is picture created from scratch by User:Steifer and published on GFDL. It is not screenshot from a copyrighted video game, so there is no reason for deletion of this one, Sir Lothar (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- ad. File:Khorinis.png - Keep. It's the same "derivative work" as any self-made (not self-copied) fanart would be. If this map is not a copy of an original map/style (and it's not), it cannot be considered as a derivative work. It is just inspired and based on a game, but not copied from it. Only arguable issue about it is that it may be some kind of an "original research", but this doesn't apply on Commons. Masur (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Maps of Middle-earth: derivative works of copyrighted works. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Tom Brower VOTE License Plates
[edit]
All three files are duplicates of each other. The first two were uploaded by User:Cynthia Nyross, claiming it as her own work, the third was uploaded by User:Tom Brower (user name equals the name of the depicted person), similarly claiming it as his own work. The image is a scan of a printed page as seen by the patterns and the still visible caption. If this picture comes indeed from Tom Brower and if he has indeed the copyright of this, we would need a confirmation through OTRS which would hopefully also name the photographer. And the duplicates need to be deleted anyway. Currently, just the first image is in use, the other two not. The second picture contains a lengthy advertising text which is out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete at least 2 of the three... preferably all three. --J.smith (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request It's suggested that a picture taken of a model is copyright violation. I would like a clear definition of that. If it violates copyright, it may be deleted.-Rodejong (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 15:34, 23 August 2010 Otourly deleted "File:Jehovah's Witnesses Bethel Emmen.JPG" (Copyright violation: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Rodejong#Eigen_werk.3F_.282.29) Rocket000 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Rozhin
[edit]- Luzhniki stadium in Moscow (en:Luzhniki Stadium)
- Keep There is a lot more in this foto than just the Stadium. Palmerston (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- To look at the title of the photo, the description, and the category, is really helpful to understand the main content. --Fernrohr (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:БСА Лужники Москва.JPG
- File:Плавбасслужники.JPG
- File:Luzhniki Stadium.jpg
- File:Luschniki.jpg
- File:Luschniki-edit2.jpg - duplicate of Luschniki.jpg, not undeleted
- File:Luschniki edit.jpg - ditto
- File:Grand Sports Arena of Luzhniki Stadium.jpg
- File:Фестиваль в лужниках.jpg
- File:Luzhniki stadium.jpg
- Plastic chairs & display panel are not subject to copyright protection :) --Amarhgil (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Park Kultury subway station in Moscow (en:Park Kultury (Koltsevaya Line))
- File:Park Kultury-Koltsevaya.jpg
- File:Park Kultury1.jpg - shows copyrighted artwork, not undeleted
- File:ParkKultury1.JPG - ditto
- File:Park kul'tury kol'tsevaya.JPG
- File:Park Kultury2.JPG
- File:ParkKultury3.JPG
- File:ParkKultKolc2.JPG
- File:Park Kultury-Koltsevaya Old 2.jpg - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:ParkKultury5.JPG
- Smolenskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Smolenskaya (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line))
- File:Smolen-arka.JPG
- File:Smolen-metr.JPG
- File:Smolenskaya-OP.JPG - shows copyrighted artwork, not undeleted
- File:Smolenskaya1.JPG - ditto
- File:Smolenskaya2.JPG
- File:Smolenskaya3.JPG
These are images of architecturial works of Igor Rozhin, who died in 2005 ([6]). There is no FOP in Russia ([7]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([8]). Should be Category "Undelete in 2076/80" --Fernrohr (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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) 07:16, 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) 08:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete How seriously we take North Korean (or indeed Chinese) copyright law tends not to matter, given that a citizen is breaking the law if they attempt to connect to the world wide web. By contrast, if we knowingly break Russian copyright law, we are knowingly endangering Wikimedia in Russia. There needs to be a more compelling reason than that. WFCforLife (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- NVO and SibFreak's arguments cannot be accepted. Russia is not the only country that doesn't recognize FOP. We've taken down pictures of recent architecture and sculpture from France, Belgium or Italy as well, just to name a few. Russia has every right not to acknowledge FOP, even if we regret it deeply. I will delete all pictures that don't respect COM:FOP. If anyone here belongs to a WP that can accept these pictures, please transfer them there. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly. No FoP in Russia. Hekerui (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Too bad. -Gump Stump (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kept two of the stadium and one of the subway that did not contain anything copyrightable. Kameraad Pjotr 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Logos of User:Stefreak
[edit]- File:KlasseStimmung.jpg
- File:Fröhlich.jpg
- File:Gewalt keine Lösung.jpg
- File:Meine HandSTOP.jpg
- File:MUSIC.jpg
All are unused personal logos of the uploader with no foreseeable use - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree, out of scope --Isderion (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)