Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Produced by CSPAN TV[1], so not PD as far as I know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep the file already survived my wrong conclusion that it is non-commercial. Per http://www.c-span.org/About/Copyright.aspx it is indeed non-commercial, but Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain[...]. If this is from such a debate - a verifiable source is missing anyhow - it is in the public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, see that was kind of why I nominated it, because I wanted to see if the footage was PD, and concluded that it probably wasn't. But if it is, that means we could actually upload it all to Commons, right? Then we would have a lot of potential footage and images of different rock musicians ad politicans at our disposal. Do you have any more info on the status of the footage? FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I missed your question: No, I have no information but also no reason to doubt that the copyright information is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, see that was kind of why I nominated it, because I wanted to see if the footage was PD, and concluded that it probably wasn't. But if it is, that means we could actually upload it all to Commons, right? Then we would have a lot of potential footage and images of different rock musicians ad politicans at our disposal. Do you have any more info on the status of the footage? FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
91.4.142.205 07:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination seems to be vandalism by an anon ip. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This image was obviously (and the uploaded stated it as well) taken from the platform of a "Deutsche Bundesbahn" train station. Images that were taken on "Deutsche Bundesbahn" territory cannot be used for commercial purposes. This file must get deleted because of this. 80.187.102.121 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well, Mr. unknown, the photo was taken out of a coach of the Eifelbahn e.V. and NOT from the DB platform. The Federal German Railways (Deutsche Bundesbahn) is, however, not in existence anymore. Since 1994 it is "Deutsche Bahn AG" Cobatfor (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
kept obviously no reason to delete this file. axpdeHello! 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
LP cover: false license and author André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Infrogmation (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
scan to LP by live artist: [2] and false license and author André Koehne TALK TO ME 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
wrong file selected Apfeltalk (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: wrong file selected during uploading process
no license Radhakrishnanrk (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since September 17, 2010
Blacklisted on the English Wikipedia as a generic file name. File:6.svg already exists, so no reason to keep this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
kept, image is in use on de.wikipedia, de.wikibooks and ro.wikibooks --Isderion (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There at least three other, higher quality version of this file. Actually the problem is wider than that: there are many redundant files from "Wiki loves art", and it takes a long time to give them an adequate categorisation.--Zolo (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as very low quality duplicate. It was blurred and we have much better images. Amada44 talk to me 07:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -RichKl (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC) das Foto entstand nach einem Krankenhausaufenthalt unter der Voraussetzung, es nicht zu veröffentlichen. Judith Kuckart sieht so nicht aus.
- Keep diese "begründung" ist etwas (weit) "neben der spur"! das foto stammt von einer öffentlichen veranstaltung + voraussetzungen bzw. vereinbarungen zur "nichtveröffentlichung" gibt es darüber keine: weder gibt es zwischen frau kuckart + mir, noch zwischen mir + anderen stellen, absprachen dazu. ich bin ausserdem - ohne das dies auf den diesen vorgang entscheidenten einfluss hätte - der meinung, dass ich hier immer nur fotos "hochlade" die die person weder diskriminieren noch entstellen. + die einzige (nachträgliche) bearbeitung (der jeweiligen porträts) besteht darin, dass ich das foto gerade ausrichte (lotrecht), den geeigneten ausschnitt wähle + schärfe, helligkeit + eventuell die farbe (bei bedarf) etwas korrigiere. wenn meine bilder gegen besser geeignete in den artikeln ausgetauscht werden ist das ok. aber deswegen gleich löschen ist etwas zuviel des guten! ;-) dontworry (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per dontworry. Amada44 talk to me 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted band logo, not owned by the uploader Floydian (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. This is a text only logo and therefor puplic domain. Amada44 talk to me 07:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope -- not useful, user has indefinite block on WP:EN for copyvio, sockpuppetry Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality ; Personal image (...my trip...): Commons is not a personal web site --Civa (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Too blurry, random photo, unlikely to be useful to anyone for anything. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Very blurry, no evidence of any compensating importance or notability of anything shown. Commons has many other images of the same station which are of much better quality. Infrogmation (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality ; Personal image (...my trip...): Commons is not a personal web site --Civa (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Too blurry, random photo, unlikely to be useful to anyone for anything. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No description ; Poor quality (too dark) ; No educational interest ; Exact place unknown ; Probably violates COM:FOP#France --Civa (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. uploader is okay with del. Amada44 talk to me 09:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No description ; Poor quality (too dark) ; No educational interest ; Exact place unknown ; Probably violates COM:FOP#France --Civa (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.uploader is okay with del. Amada44 talk to me 09:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! This is an old photo of me myself (Gew@wk:en/sv). However, I've had erhm "privacy issues" with the fact that this image pops up when Googling "Skogswald" (my commons~ username). Therefor, earlier today I requested namechange Skogswald->Xanor@Commons. It was granted and my Commons username is no longer Skogswald. However, the old username 'Skogswald' is still present in the history of this image. If you could possible erase all occurances of "Skogswald" it would do. If not, please delete the photo, so that I can re-upload it (with no trace of my old username) or even yet a newer picture. After all, this photo is ~6 years old :) Ty in adv~ Xanor (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete and let Xanor upload this or another picture to replace it. It's a private image anyway. –Tryphon☂ 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Useless. Poor quality image. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really useful for educational proyects. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tiny image, orphan, not usefully described or categorized, looks like yoinked from website. Infrogmation (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. --Art-top (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Very blurry -> useless 62.245.120.228 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry undistinguished image of what looks to be a common urban street scene. No indication of any compensating importance notability. Infrogmation (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 09:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Älvsnabben (M01) instead. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:HMS Älvsnabben (M01) -- Common Good (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The copyright holder of this image is "Sikorsky", the manufucturer of this helicopter (see here). In addition this image exists in higher resolutions (and more extended versions) on the web: example here. High Contrast (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This file was taken from Sikorsky X2 as it is. It may be updated, but i think it couldn't be deleted Asally (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The image obviously comes from Sikorsky X2|here: it is correctly stated there that the copyright is of Sikorsky Aircraft. So, it is a blatant copyright violation. Besides, fair use material is not allowed on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Göteborg class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Göteborg class destroyer -- Common Good (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Ehrensköld class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Småland (J19) --Mr Bullitt (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Halland class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Halland class destroyer -- Common Good (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Mode class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Mode class destroyer -- Common Good (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Psilander class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Psilander class destroyer -- Common Good (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:Östergötland class destroyer --Mr Bullitt (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
305 41.226.87.216 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Python and Qt.svg
- File:Python-logo-notext.svg
- File:Python.svg
- File:Text-x-python-alt.svg
- File:Text-x-python.svg
- File:Python and Qt.svg
[only when] it's used to indicate the Python programming language doesn't allow free use for any other purpose, making derivatives etc. It's rather something like fair use, which also says when and how file can be used. Some of listed below logos are on the other hand clear CVs/un-free derivatives. Moreover Python trademark policy specifies how and when logo can be used, which makes it simililar in this to i.e. Wikimedia logo and certainly doesn't allow derivatives or any alterations. Masur (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, Masur wrote everything, I agree with him. Karol007 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment the restrictions by the PSF trademark policy are equal for all logos of companies: you are not allowed to do what you like with them due to other rights except the copyright: {{Trademarked}}. I would say it is {{PD-ineligible}} but I do not know the US copyright perfectly - consequently I would not upload it to Commons. However, in Germany the logo would be ineligible to copyright. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As Masur. Mintho (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it really a copyright restriction? Sounds like a trademark restriction, meaning this should be kept with the {{Trademark}} template if this is of trademark nature. Esby (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Edit: I mailed the fsf about the issue. Esby (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. As Saibo and Esby said above, those are trademark restrictions (which is why they're listed at http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/). The Python logo is distributed with the Python source package, and is thus covered by the GPL-compatible Python Software Foundation License. –Tryphon☂ 12:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Python logo is as "unfree" and not "GPL" as Wikimedia logos aren't CC. How Python logo can be free, when there are stated restriction of how it has to look, how one is allowed to re-make it? Moreover, Firefox is GPL (or how is it called for Mozilla) but its logo is clearly excluded from this license, and the same is for Python. And last, but not least, many of logos listed above are simple copytright violations anyway - because authors falsely imputed copyrights to themselves. Masur (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it say that the logo is excluded from the software license? The only specific thing I see about the logo is again about trademarks: This License Agreement does not grant permission to use BeOpen trademarks or trade names in a trademark sense to endorse or promote products or services of Licensee, or any third party. The Python license page indicates that most Python releases are GPL-compatible, which means every file in the package must be GPL-compatible. –Tryphon☂ 14:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment regarding copyright: I have sent them an email asking for permission - probably the easiest way since I do not know if these snakes are ineligible. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thx. So we will wait and see. Masur (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just downloaded the source package: it includes a nice svg logo: Python-3.1.2/PC/icons/Python-3.1.2/PC/icons/baselogo.svg. The python (GPL compat.) license in file LICENSE is about "this software ("Python") in source or binary form and its associated documentation". --Saibo (Δ) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I !vote here specifically in my capacity as Chair of the Python Software Foundation Trademarks Committee, not only as a long-time Wikipedia contributor. The Python logo is indeed available under the GPL-compatible (but actually more permissive) Python Software License. Purely nominative uses of the logo are automatically permitted without any extra permission of the Trademarks Committee (nor generally of the PSF), and this use of the unaltered logo at WikiMedia Commons is such a nominative use. Moreover, WikiMedia is a non-commercial organization so no concern about commercial use is raised. Obviously, some unrelated 3rd party might not be permitted to download the logo image here, and create an unauthorized derived version, but that concern is identical as if they obtained the original at python.org. The PSF has no concern about mirroring the logo here, and as a user/editor, I specifically advocate its continued inclusion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (David Mertz)
- Keep Thank you very much for your comment! So, if the logo is available under GPL we can tag the files with {{GPL}} and {{Trademarked}} and everything is fine. By the way: If the file really is available under GPL it can also be used commercially as long as this specific form of commercial use is not prohibited by the trademark rights. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters explanation. I also agree with Saibo, just add {{GPL}} and {{Trademarked}} and everything is fine. Béria Lima msg 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Lulu; if verification is necessary of his capacity to declare this confirmation of licensing, them I'm sure he can email OTRS. Otherwise, this can be closed. fetchcomms☛ 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Buildings at the bottom which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Info deleted in 2016 because (as per log): "14:29, 9 January 2016 Krd talk contribs deleted page File:Burj Dubai Lake Hotel & Serviced Apartments Under Construction on 12 April 2007.jpg (no FoP in Dubai - Using VisualFileChange.)" Comment by non-admin JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 06:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 06:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any buildings at the bottom which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Info deleted in 2016 because (as per log): "14:29, 9 January 2016 Krd talk contribs deleted page File:Burj Dubai Lake Hotel & Serviced Apartments Under Construction on 2 March 2007.jpg (no FoP in Dubai - Using VisualFileChange." Comment by non-admin JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: "14:29, 9 January 2016 Krd talk contribs deleted page File:Burj Dubai Lake Hotel 02.12.2007.jpg (no FoP in Dubai - Using VisualFileChange.)" _ note added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 08:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. Any other buildings which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing special about this one. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just some skyscrapper, no art. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. The advertisements which are not the subject are Commons:De minimis. CT Cooper · talk 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 11:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable in this image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 11:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable in this image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 11:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in USA, no FOP there, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 14:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in France, no FOP there, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no FOP in Nice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in Sweden, FOP there requires that it be outdoors, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in the USA, there is no FOP, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree--Gerardus (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Gerardus (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in USA, there is no FOP, therefore the image is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. US sculpture from 2003. Trycatch (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is the same subject as that of the deleted file: this is a 2002 sculpture created by w:Niki de Saint Phalle, one of her last works. There is no freedom of panorama in the U.S., and permission and free license from her heirs is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 10:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in USA, there is no FOP, therefore the image is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, can't you "speedy delete" the image? --Gerardus (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although I don't think there is a formal policy on it, we don't generally {{Speedy}} in cases where lack of FOP is the issue. I suspect this is because many users do not understand that even though they took the photo, they must pay attention to FOP, so it gives them a chance to ask questions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I myself was in 2007 the uploader from Flickr. Idealist and innocent at the time, not knowing much about FOP-issues. Now wiser and sadder I prefer a speedy delete. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- One of the reasons we don't {{Speedy}} FOP cases is shown by another sculpture by the same artist that I also tagged {{Delete}} -- see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sungod.jpg. The fate of Sun God is not yet clear -- maybe this one also can be saved. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I myself was in 2007 the uploader from Flickr. Idealist and innocent at the time, not knowing much about FOP-issues. Now wiser and sadder I prefer a speedy delete. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although I don't think there is a formal policy on it, we don't generally {{Speedy}} in cases where lack of FOP is the issue. I suspect this is because many users do not understand that even though they took the photo, they must pay attention to FOP, so it gives them a chance to ask questions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. US sculpture from 2003. Trycatch (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This photo is not in the public domain: the author died in 1974 80.187.103.84 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't know exactly what's the duration of copyright in Costa Rica (presumably the country of origin), but it's almost certainly 70 years pma or more. –Tryphon☂ 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in USA, there is no FOP, therefore the image is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 1983 US sculpture. Trycatch (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons is not Fotolog. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely attack picture. Trycatch (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
photo to LP to live artist; false author and license André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted image to official site of artist; false license and author André Koehne TALK TO ME 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Question the own work. The only contribution of the user, no EXIF data and 5 hits on [3] Wouter (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and users sole contribution. 98% probability of copyvio. Amada44 talk to me 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 23#File:GretaGarbo1920s.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photoplay Magazine wasn't renewed until the 1940s; see [4].--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are (or I am) misunderstanding. US copyrights have to be renewed 28 years after the creation of the item. So they didn't start renewing until they'd been around for 28 years. It's not relevant in case this unless they failed to renew on the 28th year of publication for this item. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to that webpage I linked, the first renewed issue of Photoplay Magazine was January 1944 (v. 24 no. 2).--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I see. OK, withdrawn. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are (or I am) misunderstanding. US copyrights have to be renewed 28 years after the creation of the item. So they didn't start renewing until they'd been around for 28 years. It's not relevant in case this unless they failed to renew on the 28th year of publication for this item. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The source file of the drawing is deleted, please find another source or delete the image --Koraiem (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think the deletion rationale is valid. Hohum (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. None of the uploaders of the file appear to have been notified, so I have done this. Hohum (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. Raul654 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. A derivative version cannot be kept when the original work from which it is derived was itself deleted from Commons for not being free. This derivative version cannot be tagged with a free license when the original work is not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Line drawings of maps are not derivative works, as the information on the map itself cannot be copyrighted. See Commons:Derivative_works#Maps Raul654 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No real reason to delete the file. May be there is an emotional one. Kordas (sínome!) 17:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. ChrisO who modified it is blocked for socking:
(14:52, 29 June 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) blocked ChrisO (talk) (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite : This account is a sock puppet of Ron liebman and has been blocked indefinitely.) I believe that's the valid standard procedure, you may note here on his talk page that all his other works have already been deleted.... sad! Nevertheless have a good day, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that one of the people who edited it is now blocked is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not this should be deleted. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, ChrisO is the one who edited that version. I need to check:
1) since User:Malik Shabbaz once did delete an image after User:Supreme Deliciousnes requested it, so AGF, I accepted their action as legit
2) another rule that puzzles me here: I thought this can be closed only by an uninvolved editor, you voted 'keep' and are involved then, aren't you?
I am lost in all these bureaucratics... Cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not deleted - no valid reason given for deletion. Raul654 (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment See Commons:Deletion_requests/Eiffel_Tower_by_night for a similar debate--DieBuche (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The lights on the Eiffeltower are protected by copyright... request done by ip Huib talk 18:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- De minimis? Probably difficult to argue. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Blurry and not a huge part of the image, so I'd argue de minimis does apply here. fetchcomms☛ 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was more or less my initial thinking in putting this image in 'De Minimis might apply'. Now should a separate DR should be filled? Esby (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image is an overview and the tower is only a part of it. So, the image doesn't copyright --Civa (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the tower is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Yo, el autor de esta foto, JorgeLC, subí el día 16/05/2010 otra foto más actualizada. Por eso pido el borrado de ésta más antigua.
[Translation: I, JorgeLC, the author of this photo, took an updated shot on 16/05/2010. So I ask for this older photo to be deleted.]
- Delete: usually we do not delete older photographs just because newer ones are available, but since you are the photographer of both the photographs and have already uploaded "File:Castilloalmansaespanadesdeescalinatas.jpg", which is very similar, I think it is all right to delete this image. Next time, you can just upload the new image over the older image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you meant "deleted": [5]. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Converted from speedy by [[User:Wbuttl}} who placed the {{Speedy}} a second time after it was removed by User:Turelio. Wbuttl's reason was:
- "This is a photo of the library's photo of the MS, and the library's photo is in copyright. There are no printed facsimile. The copyright is the library's, since the library has made the photo which has been photographed and uploaded by Kjeju. Please delete."
-- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThis is an old manuscript and according to our rules there is no copyright in photographs of 2D objects. The museum's claim to copyright cannot be supported by the applicable case law. Therefore this is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Jim. --Idunius (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
kept, per Jameslwoodward. --Ra'ike T C 12:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
not sure if the uploader is the copyright holder, see also http://www.tineye.com/search/88703c4c03daf8068f40f9ce712e7be3fa6ed53a/?sort=size&order=desc --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be unfree of a living person; several duplicates on the internet. Also, a use name of "bob lulz"?... Izno (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Official photo of brazilian politician, not free and spam (pt: período eleitoral no Brasil) André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Already tagged with {{Npd}}, no need for a deletion request. But delete, yes. –Tryphon☂ 12:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is that? Out of scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's apparently a rose or something. I've fixed the link to the original now. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Création artistique personnelle, idéale pour une galerie d'art ou un musée. Inutile pour une encyclopédie.--gilbertus (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep, or strong keep. It's nice, and doesn't "have to be something"; could simply be a good piece of art. If the licence is good, then keep, definitely. Rehman 13:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Delete. Wait a minute, this looks like some random work by some random guy. Thought it was some known artwork. Commons is not a repository of random home-made work. Rehman 12:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is that? Out of scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is that? Out of scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is that? Out of scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Es la imagen que utilizo en mi página de usuario. Un poquito de por favor.--Nemo (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Dodo (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use on User:Nemo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. In use on a User page, which is permitted within limits. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
scan to very recent journal; false license and author André Koehne TALK TO ME 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
scan to recent daily; false license and author André Koehne TALK TO ME 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The template {{subst:nsd}} was added more than 7 days ago. We have to delete the image. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Info it is also in the web: http://www.magalcom.co.il/dealing_rooms.html - looks like a official manufacturer photograph. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In that case, copyvio! Luispihormiguero Any problem? 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
the files is being maintained at a different place in a better and regular way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikingos (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which replaces this, File:Malakas Forecast Map.gif? Wknight94 talk 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, replacement has not been provided. Kameraad Pjotr 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
False author, not a free image. See description: "Fotos Antigas Exposição UNEB" means "Ancient photos exposition in State University of Bahia" André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-Brazil-media}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
False license and author; it's not free image to Catholic Diocesis of Aracaju André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Appears to be the uploader's personal fantasy about what a "dug-in, remote weapon system" would be like. Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep I'm not using this image at wikipedia, only (linked from, and not even directly) at wikiversity. The intent is to have a concept less-lethal weapon system (personal defence). Indeed it's a concept, but it would work (follows conventional trench warfare tactics) and there currently isn't an image of a less/non-lethal remote operated weapons system at wikimedia. In scope considering wikiversity policy, not wikipedia (but it isn't intented for the latter)
KVDP (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would dispute the "it would work" bit. If I translate your vague lines into actual mechanical systems, every one of those systems maps to a historical technique that was discarded for being fragile or failure-prone. Sliding doors warp, bend, and jam. Flexible ammunition feeds kink, twist, and jam. Hydraulic lines rupture, dirt wears away at seals, and the whole system loses precision and accuracy over time. Long, skinny support structures tend to bend and break. The "detection of living organisms" sensor doesn't even exist because "living organisms" is such a hard thing to define. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, indeed the system needs to be maintained well and repaired once failure is detected. The sliding plate (if made sturdy enough) will not bend, definitly since there is no weight put upon them. The jamming might occur ie in case filth gets between the rail and wheels, however since it's placed on a well reachable location, it can get cleaned often. The ammunition belts can be offcourse kept level (ie I know that for example cans where used for guiding the belts on M60's). In addition, the belts would be entirely different anyhow as the ammo= simple lead balls (no "bullets with propellant integrated") The support structure can be calculated and made as thick as required, finally the sensor would be low-tech, ie engaging when ie thermal heat is detected, or when ie a snare has been pulled on. It will thus engage more often than required, but this is a trade-off in regards to cost.
- the image can be regarded as WP:OR, I'll modify the description a bit to make this clear.
91.182.183.45 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop IP sockpuppeting. It fools no one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not the work of the uploader copied from the Genet Major 1A Aero Engine Manual refer at http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Genet-Major-1A-Aero-Engine-Manual-CD-/260667414361 MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see also File:Genet Major - (7cyl) .jpg for the same problem. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep converting from a speedy. the uploader has provided an improved version of the file, & requests that this one be deleted; however, the improved version, while of comparable resolution, slightly wider crop, & with better-looking colour, also appears to have some glitching, in the form of hard white markings, not present on the older version of the image. best archival practices would be to keep both, preferably as separate file entries. if absolutely necessary, the newer version could be overwritten on top of the older file, so that at least it would remain semi-accessable via "history", instead of simply being "gone".
(images should be compared @ full-size)
-
original -
revised
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AVistadelcasatilloalmansadesdeescalinatas.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Lx 121 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
coverted from a speedy; the nominator cited the image as "incorrect drawing", without providing any further information; under the circumstances, i feel it's more appropriate to do this as a standard delete, & i would like to respectfully request clarification from the nominator, as to what the problems with the image are? Lx 121 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No source, nor details Pibwl (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Article 27(1) of the Bulgarian Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights applies the 70 pma rule. However, without any indication of who the author is (or whether he or she is anonymous, or if this is the work of a government agency), it is not possible to tell whether the image is now in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Useless Gardon21 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- If fr:Forum Grand Ouest is deleted, then delete. –Tryphon☂ 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Rupiah Coin 1000 B Bi-metal.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 1000 A.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 1000 B.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 500 A.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 500 B.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 200 A.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 200 B.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 100 A.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 100 B.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 50 A.JPG
- File:Rupiah Coin 50 B.JPG
Indonesia is not listed at Commons:Currency, we have to assume their coins are copyrighted. –Tryphon☂ 11:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a photo of another artwork that is copyrighted. See also COM:DERIV#depictobject_ownpic –Krinkletalk 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, most of the packaging is ineligible, but the logo isn't, and I don't think it's old enough to be out of copyright. –Tryphon☂ 08:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:38, 26 January 2011 by Krinkle, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence is provided that the uploader has the authority to release this (presumably copyrighted) image under a free license. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Infringes on both the label's copyright and Niki de Saint Phalle's Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in France, there is no FOP, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Bon soir James This may well be the case but I doubt the free-spirited artist would refuse permission since the work is a whimsical tribute to her dead friend and in any case it's not an especially good (or indeed good) photograph. It is difficult to see who would benefit from the deletion of an unusable picture of this little delight in a sad part of Paris. I take the point (odd though such a restriction is from a country born in revolution) but I hope it stays. Notafly (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Everything you say is true. I, too, would like to keep it, but is our firm policy to respect copyright as required by the applicable law -- in fact, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle anticipates all of your arguments. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your full and sympathetic answer Jim. I see you have no choice.I'll write the Ministry of Culture to see if there is a chance of changing this law.Pragmatism is a French virtue so we will see Thanks again Robert aka Notafly (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone in scope? (Note: Not a sculpture.) E4024 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really usefull for educational proyects. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like this MIGHT be a photo of some sort of historic artwork of possible importance and in scope usefulness... except that it has NO description nor identifying information. Anyone have any clues as to what this is? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am disturbed by rationale "not useful for educational purposes" for this file. Not hard to find the short description, and less short description (page 201) of the object. It requires OTRS confirmation, though, I think. Trycatch (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- 14th century French artwork? Keep . Why would OTRS be required? It is labeled as uploader's own photo of PD-Old artwork. Infrogmation (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The photograph was previously published in the above mentioned PDF. Trycatch (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- 14th century French artwork?
- I am disturbed by rationale "not useful for educational purposes" for this file. Not hard to find the short description, and less short description (page 201) of the object. It requires OTRS confirmation, though, I think. Trycatch (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cover from show, copyrighted image and false license André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no proof that this photo was taken by a US Army employee 80.187.102.121 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Presuming this 1925 US Army graduation photo was not taken by a US Army employee, unless the photographer registered a copyright at the time and then the photographer or the photographer's heirs have renewed the copyright in the decades since, the photo is now public domain under US law. Any reason to suspect it isn't? Infrogmation (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: I can imagine circumstance in which this might be unpublished until recently, but they are pretty far fetched when it's a photo of Lindbergh. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
False author: copy to Arquidiocese de Aracaju, copyrighted map André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of the Disney character design. The fact that the DoJ photographed the blotter paper does not put the character image into the public domain. Powers (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment "The Mad Hatter" is not a Disney character, but rather a 19th century character by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson aka Lewis Carroll. The biggest difference I see between this image of the character and the (now public domain) 1865 depictions by illustrator John Tenniel (example File:MadlHatterByTenniel.svg) is that here (as in the Disney film adaptation) the character's nose is rounded rather than a sharp point seen in the original. I'm sceptical that's enough to turn this into a copyright violation. Perhaps I'm missing something? What is the copyrighted Disney material which is being violated? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- From the 1950's or 1960's Disney animated Alice film. It's not an exact copy, but it's clearly Disney-film-influenced... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Were Disney in the business of supplying hallucinogenic drugs and are the clear psychedelic references in their Alice film to be taken as supporting such? If not (and I think we can guess the answer to that), then doesn't that make the dealer's use of the Hatter image a parody of Disney's wholesome entertainment? As parody is well-known for its protection under US law, doesn't that then remove Disney's claim here?
- From the 1950's or 1960's Disney animated Alice film. It's not an exact copy, but it's clearly Disney-film-influenced... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Disney's Hatter's merely a copyvio of WC Fields anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Parody must be actively asserted, and it also (I believe) must be transformative. Even if parody were asserted here, I doubt a court would find the usage transformative. (As for W.C. Fields, real human beings are not copyrightable.) Powers (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Disney's Hatter's merely a copyvio of WC Fields anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very distinctive Disney Mad Hatter. Not free until 2047. Trycatch (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Hoffman LSD.png. Tagged as speedy by User:DragonflySixtyseven, converting to deletion request since it is in use in multiple projects. Note: Not the same image as the previous deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "delete per another unrelated and not-comparable DR" is no rationale.
- Why is this to be deleted? Because AGF is to be withdrawn regarding authorship of the photograph? Why? Or because the "artwork" here is considered to be protected, despite this being only a fraction (if there was ever any complete image) or that what's left surpasses COM:TOO ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no explanation of reason for deletion offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG
We have to many size comparison between human an Tyrannosaurus rex. 81.231.20.173 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept: Very weak reason to propose deletion Belgrano (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This tyrannosaur have the wrong look to legs, and some other problems Conty (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Charlessauer
[edit]All files of User:Charlessauer Reasons for deletion request --Charlessauer (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I no longer wish to participate in any Wiki project after User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted several of my articles on Wikipedia. Please honor my request and delete all of my files.
Delete File:Charlessauer.jpg: user page image, no longer used. Docu at 05:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep File:Viewatspraguelake.jpg: validly licensed, in use. Docu at 05:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all but: File:Charlessauer.jpg. File:Onehunterandonecougar.jpg and File:Deusexmachinalogos.jpg. Being offended is no valid reason for courtesy deletions--DieBuche (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Docu and DieBuche -- Common Good (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cause Kazak borders are very strange. Place on the north of Ural river never been in Kazakstan: "Карта ложная! Земли севернее реки Яик (Урал) никогда не входили в Казахское ханство. Вообще северная граница Казахского ханства нарисована очень вольно!" thanks IlshatS (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ilshat, you not correct! Ну почему? Казахи всегда кочевали по реке Жаик (в русской интерпретации Яик, потом переименован в Урал) и по Иртышу (казахское название Ертiс). К тому же первой столицей Казахской ССР был Оренбург, стоящий на северном берегу Жаика! А северная граница кочевого ханства нарисована, конечно, приблизительно до лесостепи, до земель сибирских татар, так как казахи скот пасли в степной зоне и пограничных столбов тогда не ставили:))). Но, к слову, башкир там точно никогда не было, их земли западнее Уральского хребта по реке Белой (Агидель). Поэтому непонятна твоя обида! User:MaratD
Казахское ханство.png
[edit]
Fake map --94.232.27.8 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no real copyright problem in this case IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a photograph of a unique piece of architecture, with a special design, and the hotel is the main focus of the photo. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trixt (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 11:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has been discussed already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Another picture of the building, File:Sequoia_Lodge.jpg, is currently under DR, so it would be nice of us to close them in the same way. In US law, a number of court cases about buildings have been for fairly mundane residential houses. I'm forced to assume that anything but the most purely derivative work would be likewise protected in France, including protected against photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg Yann (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; until shown otherwise, my theory is that the limit for copyright for buildings is the same as for novels or photographs. In most countries, you can not copy someone's novel or photograph, no matter how unoriginal, until said unoriginality reaches the level of simple copying. If an architect actually sits down and draws out a new building, it gets a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I think that this passes the threshold of originality. --Bob247 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Thanks to Prosfilaes for a very clear statement of the issue. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.147.158 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close -- deleted per discussion above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Irina 1984
[edit]- Image:Austria party.gif
- Image:Austria party.jpg
- Image:Sun set.jpg
- Image:Mapo.jpg
- Image:Moskwa.jpeg
- Image:Fruits .jpg
- Image:Girls dance.jpg
- Image:Moskwa1.jpeg
- Image:Cocktail citro.gif
- Image:Party people.jpg
- Image:Young people1.jpg
- Image:Ragtsf.jpg
- Image:Seeab7.jpg
- Image:Dfot8.jpg
- Image:Daetu.JPG
- Image:Modf.jpg
- Image:Rating.jpg
- Image:Lookup.jpg
- Image:Feers4.jpg
- Image:Vanumdf01.jpg
- Image:Toogle.jpg
- Image:Hungsn1.jpg
- Image:Wadrust.jpg
- Image:Sorcz01a.jpg
- Image:Sorcz02ak067.jpg
- Image:Sorcz04b.jpg
- Image:Sorcz05bb065.jpg
- Image:Sorcz06bd025.jpg
- Image:Sorcz07bd096.jpg
- Image:Rooftop a ger1.jpg
- Image:Cine67ma99tool1.jpg
- Image:Mot 476 bisa.jpg
- Image:Moutain azfl4.jpg
- Image:Hand 45ma44de.tif
- Image:Hand 45ma44de.jpg
- Image:Oldtrak 23-sunr.jpg
Previously deleted images
- Image:Valley .jpg
- Image:Sorcz12fb076.jpg
- Image:Sorcz11fb036.jpg
- Image:Sorcz14hi044.jpg
- Image:Sorcz15hi064.jpg
- Image:Sorcz08d.jpg
- Image:Sorcz10f.jpg
- Image:Sorcz16m.jpg
- Image:Sorcz03ak099.jpg
- Image:Sorcz13h.jpg
- Image:Sorcz18mp049.jpg
- Image:Sorcz20props078.jpg
- Image:Sorcz17mp046.jpg
The images come along with a standard infobox description (author and source are tagged as myself, description is {{en|1=look and see}}) and license is always PD-self. Most image names aren't usefull, images have often only web resolution and at least for File:Wadrust.jpg TinEye found a larger and uncropped version here.
I assume this are all copyvios but cannot prove it. Therefor I opened this request. --32X (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Low and varying resolution, lack of EXIF metadata ⇒ very likely copyright violations. –Tryphon☂ 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, also File:Sorcz02ak067.jpg has TinEye hits, one exact and one large. All uploads are copyvios. --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I found the source os another image: File:Fruits_.jpg has this source which is a noncommercial image page. Definitely not own work and all copyvios. Amada44 talk to me 07:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
SPAM --210.165.133.93 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- How is this spam?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keepas contentious IP nominator refuses to define how this is in any way spam, and keeps removing comments here, considered vandalism.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete seems out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's very vague, considering the image is used, it would seem others see it as in scope.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you see it used?--DieBuche (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's very vague, considering the image is used, it would seem others see it as in scope.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is used in en:Japanese place names, and keeps being removed by this same contentious IP, which is COI.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that the uploader is a sockpuppet account of yours? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, and that's a first! I've never been accused of having socks before. How do I combat that mistaken idea? (First, where do you get that idea?) Explain yourself. It's not only untrue, it's offensive. I have never used socks. What is your methodology to come to that mistake? If I sound angry, I am.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you're that Pieter Kuiper. Now I know why so many hate you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_place_names&curid=1634135&action=history /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper and IP-Stop removing the image from the article while this discussion is ongoing. Because I used the image does not mean I uploaded the image. Grow up.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your immediate inclusion of a strange image in the lede of an article and then edit warring over it suggests otherwise. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- And also he renamed it. And why is spam? I will explain if that user has so short understandings. The picture was used in more that 20 different Wiki, and removed from all of them. And I was not the responsible of that. Is clear now? --210.165.133.93 10:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Immediate inclusion?! Picture was uploaded on 01:52, 23 September 2010, and Kintetsubuffalo included it in the article on 17:28, 24 September 2010, after this DR was created, and Kintetsubuffalo commented it. It's not an immediate inclusion in any sense of this word. Trycatch (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, why he used in the English wiki a file with a DR? And why rename it? --210.165.133.93 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Immediate inclusion?! Picture was uploaded on 01:52, 23 September 2010, and Kintetsubuffalo included it in the article on 17:28, 24 September 2010, after this DR was created, and Kintetsubuffalo commented it. It's not an immediate inclusion in any sense of this word. Trycatch (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- And also he renamed it. And why is spam? I will explain if that user has so short understandings. The picture was used in more that 20 different Wiki, and removed from all of them. And I was not the responsible of that. Is clear now? --210.165.133.93 10:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
By spam, he means the uploader spammed it across many wikis, not that it's promotional in nature.= Rocket000 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a native ja editor. But I don't understand the meaning and importance of the seven geographical names on the map. Is it some religion related map? I don't think the image is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I wasnt sure what was meant by 210.165.133.93: The picture was used in more that 20 different Wiki, and removed from all of them. I looked for that and agree that it is a spam file uploaded by some kind of strange sockpuppet. This file was uploaded by Dg538300334883 (talk · contribs) and was included the same time by another user Special:CentralAuth/Geroaff (check the global contribs) in various Wikis. The file is undescribed, Oda Mari says that it does not make any sense, the user User:Mercy who fought this spam in many wikis had the same impression I assume. So what do we want with this file? Its just an upload by some abusive sock and spammed cross-wiki. Im actually curious why Kintetsubuffalo tries to defend this upload, you dont even know what it shows (you not gave it any description in en.wp) but insists on its inclusion in the article? --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for being the first person to honestly and completely answer my question as to why this is spam. The contentious IP did not answer, but gave me a bullshit "look spam up in the dictionary" answer. I did not know that the uploader was a sockpuppet, the image was interesting in that it had etymology of placenames, which is what I was looking for, so I included it in the article. I renamed it because it needed a proper name and was just a nonsense string of numbers and letters-it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done. Oda Mari and Trycatch are the only users out of the lot of you that I trust. All other above comments, yours included, fairly drip with bad faith. Since Oda Mari votes delete, and I trust her judgment, I change my vote to Delete.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for being the first person to honestly and completely answer my question as to why this is spam. The contentious IP did not answer, but gave me a bullshit "look spam up in the dictionary" answer. I did not know that the uploader was a sockpuppet, the image was interesting in that it had etymology of placenames, which is what I was looking for, so I included it in the article. I renamed it because it needed a proper name and was just a nonsense string of numbers and letters-it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done. Oda Mari and Trycatch are the only users out of the lot of you that I trust. All other above comments, yours included, fairly drip with bad faith. Since Oda Mari votes delete, and I trust her judgment, I change my vote to
- Stop biting and using offensive words, please. At least, finally you realised that the file must be erased, not renamed or included in any article. --210.165.133.93 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Same to you, pal.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not use any harsh word, buddy... you did it. By the way, anyone here looks like they can understand the meaning of the reason for the DR. It was so complicated for you? --210.165.133.93 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stop now, both. I dont understand the image inclusion and personally dont like that kind of inclusionism of content with unknown background or even unknown matter in this case just for the purpose of including something. And its not clear to me why we are obligatet to keep such uploads and making Commons a dump for things like this. The deletion request with only the reason 'spam' was however not clear at all, as I wrote above i wasnt able to agree before searching for the background, and due to the revert in all projects I wasnt able to find it so quickly. Your question if this was to complicated to find can be interpreted as unfriendly too. Thats unecessary, the reason why this can be considered spam according to the initial request is clear now. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Martin, that question can be interpreted as unfriendly or not, it depends of the reader, but should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done is clearly offensive, don´t you think? By the way, I agree that just SPAM as reason is a bit brief, but when I wrote that, there were more than 20 wiki linked to that file, and in that moment was obvious. Fortunately, everyone was deleting the file from their own wiki... but Kintetsubuffalo, who added it to the English one. --210.165.133.93 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stop now, both. I dont understand the image inclusion and personally dont like that kind of inclusionism of content with unknown background or even unknown matter in this case just for the purpose of including something. And its not clear to me why we are obligatet to keep such uploads and making Commons a dump for things like this. The deletion request with only the reason 'spam' was however not clear at all, as I wrote above i wasnt able to agree before searching for the background, and due to the revert in all projects I wasnt able to find it so quickly. Your question if this was to complicated to find can be interpreted as unfriendly too. Thats unecessary, the reason why this can be considered spam according to the initial request is clear now. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not use any harsh word, buddy... you did it. By the way, anyone here looks like they can understand the meaning of the reason for the DR. It was so complicated for you? --210.165.133.93 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. I'm a born-Japanese and have no idea how it can be useful. Locations on the map seem to be picked up randomly, and English descriptions are utterly nonsense. Also it has used for spamming & vandalising many wikis to non-relevant articles, which is clamed "to be used". --Aphaia (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete The locations don't seem to be picked randomly to me; they're almost in a straight line, and probably fit someone's idea of a w:ley line or some other magical confluence. If there is a notable theory that involves these locations, it should be kept after having been appropriately annotated with sources. Lacking such evidence, I'm happy to delete. I do have serious concerns that it doesn't link to all the sources; for one, the underlying map really needs more identifying than just "NASA".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment copyright is not a problem, the map is really PD: File:Japan satellite.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo is copyrighted ; Image of the building violates COM:FOP#France (it is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect). --Civa (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvio anyway. A brand new user uploading low-res photo from a several-thousand-dollar camera. Wknight94 talk 16:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Better SVG image created. --Kwasura (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Superseded images are not to be deleted per community consensus. -- Cecil (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Images of Harukaze
[edit]My(User:Harukaze) all photos to provide and it was lost. becouse I'm retired Wikipedia. --Harukaze (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licences on images cannot be revoked by law. Just because you are leaving a project does not mean the images you donated will loose their licence. -- Cecil (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent sculpture in USA, there is no FOP, therefore the image is a derivative work and a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Work published in 1983? Registered? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Good question. I can't find it at the copyright office search page. However, I don't know if that's definitive, or if I searched definitively. Also, was it first published in the USA? She is a very international artist and this might have been erected elsewhere first. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I am not sure if it was published in 1983, because definition of publication in US has changed since 1978, and mere public display doesn't constitute publication since then. Trycatch (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I share your uncertainty -- I admit I don't really understand the definition of "publication" -- logic says that putting a sculpture on permanent public display ought to constitute "publication", but, of course, the law is not always logical. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Based upon the uncertainty whether and when the copyright was registered, this image has been deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 21:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
