Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
no x data user so many times upload copyrighted images. It is screen shots of movie 59.93.205.126 05:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, same as File:Gliese 581g.jpg. Nasa.gov website which displays the work identifies it as being created by National Science Foundation/Zina Deretsky, likely with an incompatible license. --ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't think of checking whether NSF was a government agency. As the image would appear public domain, any objections to closing the nomination of deletion? --ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- There may still be a problem. See Commons_talk:Licensing#National_Science_Foundation_PD-USGov-NSF --Bdell555 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The statement refers to images on the NSF website, not the NASA website. The image was found on the NASA website though.Chhe (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, what is hosted on the NASA website is not necessarily in the public domain (this can be sourced to a variety of places). It has to be created by NASA. But if NASA credits it to the NSF and the NSF created it it's public domain because the NSF is a US government agency.Bdell555 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be a common misconception. Perhaps the warning notices when uploading US government/NASA images should boldface the part pointing out that images uploaded by NASA and credited to other parties are likely to be copyright? ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The statement refers to images on the NSF website, not the NASA website. The image was found on the NASA website though.Chhe (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- There may still be a problem. See Commons_talk:Licensing#National_Science_Foundation_PD-USGov-NSF --Bdell555 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep In any case I'll get my vote in and say I think we should keep this one because we can always hang our hat on the statement that "Images credited to the National Science Foundation, a federal agency, are in the public domain" which appears in various places around the web. So it's a co-credit. It's still a credit. And if we lose this one we'd lose images like this: 
which was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2008. I'd also note that it has a NSF watermark.--Bdell555 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This NASA source page: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/Gliese_581_System.html has the image credit. Tomruen (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Image Credit: National Science Foundation/Zina Deretsky
- The original NSF page with a download link is here: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=117765&org=NSF.
- Keep, and Close Nomination The NSF is a Federal Agency, and as such all works created for the Foundation are in the public domain. Not to mention that the image adds much to the article. Solarra (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The statement on the NSF web site "Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation" makes it reasonable to believe the image was created by NSF, therefore public domain, unless there were evidence to the contrary. Thincat (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Further comment: Zina Deretsky is an NSF employee http://www.nsf.gov/staff/results.jsp?s_FirstName=Zina&s_LastName=Deretsky&s_Org=&search.x=30&search.y=10 Thincat (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Though personally I'm more dubious about co-credit, really they should be checked to make sure one of the entities credited is not for example an outside artist who gave the other credited party the right to distribute. Given the above information however this instance appears above-board so it should be kept. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation: screenshot of a 20th century map, not old enough to be in PD; probably a Michelin or IGN map. Sting (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- bgbhkm:cette photo est libre de droit domaine public je l ai trouver sur google .bgbhkm 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tout ce qui est sur Google n'est pas dans le domaine public !
- Candidate for speedy deletion, because it's a clear copyvio. --Hercule (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The original file, larger, is here. It's a scan of a 1953 Michelin map, so copyrighted. Sting (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete copyright Michelin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as clear-cut copyvio from Michelin map. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Invalid file Animelady09 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 29 September 2010 (info)
I think this is not an own work (DPA) Stöhrfall (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 13:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
no encyclopedic content Vigilius (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Concur. And she's not even sending an e-mail (unless she's doing it secretly behind her folded arms!). Anatiomaros (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Photo is from a February 1987 edition of a Dutch newspaper (Amersfoortse Courant) which is not PD or released under a CC-license Robotje (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work by Flickr user: "Een tijd geleden kwam er bij mijn ouders van zolder een doos vol met krantenknipsels, mijn moeder bewaarde deze omdat ik de foto's gemaakt had. Allemaal uit de jaren 80. Zo nu en dan scan ik er een en plaats die dan op Flickr." [1] Trycatch (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not everything on the NCBI site is made by federal employees. This is by Jon Nield, see http://www.queenmaryphotosynthesis.org/nield/psIIimages/PSII.html Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
wrong created Connie Music (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
unused drawing of characters from a videogame with no notability or article in any wiki project - out of scope, possible copyvio Santosga (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a not notable person Amada44 talk to me 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a news photo. Based on the Flickr user's other photos, unlikely this is the user's own photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree, other photos by the same user are drastically different. Trycatch (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks an awful lot like a professional publicity shot. Low resolution, no metadata. I don't believe this was created by the uploader, but rather that it's a copyvio. —Angr 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - cropped, full-size can be seen here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
copyvio logo Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
was only used on deleted enwiki autobio page, no other useful purpose Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
was only used on deleted enwiki spam pages, no other useful purpose Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete probably not own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
makes no sense --Fransvannes (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - empty categories can be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Churches in Town halls in Overijssel: makes no sense
Copyright violation: the photo is from 1950 so it can't be in PD because its copyright has expired. Sting (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- cette photo libre de droit en plus c un amie qu m a donner et elle ne se trouve nul part sur le net elle est libre de droit domaine public bgbhkm 15:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)bgbhkm
- Keep per COM:L#Algeria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- That might work, with the date of publication + PD-Algeria + Not-PD-US-URAA. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Horizontally flipped version of File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg in vastly inferior quality and resolution. Latebird (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
A horizontally flipped and image edited version of File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg with no possible educational use. Latebird (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
An image edited version of File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg with no possible educational use. Latebird (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright reserved CERminator (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- using without permisson from hiphop.ba --CERminator (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded by Mistake Vikas Chabra (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
very low quality image -> useless Sevela.p 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Own work? A pic of a professor that died in 1949? Very unlikely! Paulae (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, may be deleted. Best regards, --Jue (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work; in Canada, Freedom of panorama does not apply to 2D murals Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Canadian law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Was put up by city of Baie-Comeau, unknown artist, but if the law is different than statues, so be it.--Harfang (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF, one of three uploads by this user, all of which are problematic Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom + see some rationale here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tumbekafestadion.JPG. Trycatch (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
All rights reserved at [2] Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- In fact the picture is uploaded in 2009, and the picture from your link is from 2010. So this is not proof.--R ašo
17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Surely, Raso mk is right, but the user uploaded only 4 photographs (+number of football club logos). At least 2 from the photographs are confirmed copyvios. File:Gjhristov.jpg was likely taken from [3] (bit to bit identical, year 2001), File:Pancevgoldenkopacka.jpg -- bit to bit identical to [4] ("Foto: AFP", published at least several months earlier than the upload to Commons). All copyvios (including the logos) were uploaded under false own work claim, with the very similar descriptions. So, giving the uploader's contribution history, there is no much choice but to delete these files. Trycatch (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://web.archive.org/web/20010614024922/http://www.anhoch.com/fudbal/hristov.jpg){kind=link}
Nominating as uploader, since there isn't a speedy deletion criterion on Commons of "deletion on the request of the uploader", and this is not a clear copyright violation either. I originally uploaded this on grounds of coming under de minimis as a picture of the bay/palm, and not copyrighted buildings, since there is no FoP in the United Arab Emirates. However, on review of my UAE uploads I have concluded that the case for de minimis is too weak in this case, since the main subject of these images is clearly the buildings. A second opinion is welcome. CT Cooper · talk 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- KeepNo outstanding copyrightable building. Should be keepable. -- 194.48.128.75 10:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Question What would you consider to be an "outstanding copyrightable building"? Are the grounds for keeping these images de minimis or something else? CT Cooper · talk 17:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as above Julo (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment - If this image is kept, I'm going to be rather puzzled as it looks rather out of line with the deletion of File:Burj_Al_Arab_from_Le_Royal_Méridien_Beach_Resort_and_Spa_in_Dubai_3.jpg which was in my opinion a much more borderline case than this one. This nomination concerns buildings which take up a significant part of the image and are a clear focus of it, while the deleted image concerns buildings to the right which while close were not the main subject of the image, and could (and now will be) cropped out leaving a useful image behind. CT Cooper · talk 20:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can request an undelete for the above one. --Elekhh (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not going to request undeletion unless I have a solid case, and in any case its only the buildings on the right that were the issue, so they can be cropped out, which is why I told the closing admin that I would not pursue it further. If this image is kept, then I have no problem if it is on solid reasoning. Given that his decision is being discussed, I think it is appropriate to ask the closing admin for his views on this to find out if he think this image is different from the one that was deleted. CT Cooper · talk 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can request an undelete for the above one. --Elekhh (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is an image of a skyline not an image of a building. Each building takes up less than 5% of the image, and no design details are visible. --Elekhh (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: If you view the image at full resolution the design details seem visible to me. CT Cooper · talk 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. This is a skyline and no single building is more than a small part of it. It is true that severe cropping could lead to images that would be problematic, but that is generally true of situations where de minimis applies.
In File:Burj_Al_Arab_from_Le_Royal_Méridien_Beach_Resort_and_Spa_in_Dubai_3.jpg, a single building was more or less than entire right quarter of the image, so it was hard to apply de minimis to it. I should add that if you cropped off the right side of that image, you would be left with (if I remember correctly) only Burj Al Arab and the beach. Without further cropping, it would not be a very pleasing image, and with or without the cropping Burj Al Arab would be the focus of the photo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
contrary to the template given, it is not public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment there is a DR for the template: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
was only used on deleted enwiki page, no other useful purpose Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a mashup of copyrighted images. Quick search at http://www.tineye.com show similar images. unlikely to be in public domain. Managementboy (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong license tag Alexey Suslov (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not exempt from copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of website with no notability as decided here en:Napalm Riot - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the text, appears to be a contemporary map of Acadia in 1658. No source provided. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've provided the source, have a look--Harfang (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Published when? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Harfang, that source is incomplete. We need to know when and where "Histoire de France" was published so the copyright status can be assessed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Besides, the file was clearly copied from here. A larger version exists here. Here it is claimed that this is a map showing Acadia in 1654 (not 1658). It doesn't say the map itself was from back then, which is rather unlikely anyway, given the fonts and symbols used. Delete Lupo 20:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you think all these websites got the map? It's not that great of a map. A 10 year old could have done better. I am sure many books have used it as well. They don't even know the exact date or the author. Next time I use maps, I will make my own, then we will avoid this.--Harfang (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Besides, the file was clearly copied from here. A larger version exists here. Here it is claimed that this is a map showing Acadia in 1654 (not 1658). It doesn't say the map itself was from back then, which is rather unlikely anyway, given the fonts and symbols used.
- Delete No evidence that this is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has changed the image description to indicate that the image is from a 1955 book published in France. Copyright in France extends 70years pma, so this image will not enter the public domain any earlier than 2025. Moreover, French law does not recognize works for hire, so the copyright may even extended longer, depending on the lifetime of the creator. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.Otero (talk • contribs) 2010-09-30T12:48:43 (UTC)
- Keep. Licensed under the CC-BY-2.5. Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable. No reason to delete. --Apalsola t • c 18:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Irrevocable? No entiendo, soy el propietario del material y no quiero compartirlo más, cuál es motivo que justifique dicha irrevocabilidad? Por favor, borrar esta foto y todo el material, de mi propiedad, que he subido a este portal. --Martín Otero (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Once you have given an image to Commons, you may not take it back. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Looks more like an advertisement than a private photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed,
copyvio fromalso at http://www.virginia.org/site/description.asp?attrid=13217 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)- Some of other images by BGWeditKF (talk · contribs) also looks like advertisement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Probably ligitimately uploaded by Bush Gardens, Williamsburg; I do not see these images in this resolution on the web. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some of other images by BGWeditKF (talk · contribs) also looks like advertisement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed,
Delete Given the username of the uploader -- User:BGWeditKF -- These look like Busch Gardens might be planning to do promotion here. If so, COM:ADVERT applies. Whether or not that is true, they look like professional images and the source is given as "own work". Note that we have four different professional cameras and two different photographers shown in the EXIF data below.
- File:BGW Apollos Chariot.jpg no EXIF
- File:BGW Christmas Town.jpg Nikon D3
- File:BGW Das Festhaus.jpg no EXIF
- File:BGW Dragons.jpg Photoshop -- Scott Brown
- File:BGW Griffon.jpg no EXIF
- File:BGW Highland Stables.jpg Nikon D3
- File:BGW Ireland.jpg no EXIF
- File:BGW Italy.jpg Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III -- Jason Lindsay
- File:BGW Jack Hanna Reserve.jpg Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III -- Jason Lindsay
- File:BGW Main Image.jpg Canon EOS 5D Mark II
- File:BGW Sesame.jpg Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III -- Jason Lindsay
- File:BGW Trappers.jpg Nikon D1X -- Scott K. Brown
- File:BGWAquabatics.jpg no EXIF
- File:BGWHubbaHubbaHwy.jpg Nikon D3 -- Scott Brown
- File:BGWFamily.jpg Nikon D3
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of permission for a free licence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of company with no notability, advertising/spam as decided here es:Constructora Integratec - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please Keep this file and expand it. --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Corporate logo. Not text only
I have a better edited version of this piece with better lighting that I would like to replace this one with. Ncg10307 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If I understand correctly -- you have a better image that is otherwise essentially identical -- you can simply upload the new image over the old. See the link below the File History. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request and presumably replaced by File:2003 MJSA Vision Award - Ricardo Basta.jpg. Wknight94 talk 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Nominating as uploader, since there isn't a speedy deletion criterion on Commons of "deletion on the request of the uploader", and this is not a clear copyright violation either. I originally uploaded this on grounds of coming under de minimis as a picture of the bay/palm, and not copyrighted buildings, since there is no FoP in the United Arab Emirates. I uploaded the picture under the name I did as a point of reference so I could give my uploads of the Dubai Marina area as unique names as possible, though I am planning to re-name some of my other uploads to make the subject and non-subjects of the images more clear. However, on review of my UAE uploads I have concluded that the case for de minimis is too weak in this case, since the main subject of the image is clearly the building, with nothing else of great interest in this photo. A second opinion is welcome. CT Cooper · talk 10:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment This is a hard one -- I come down very close to the fence. I guess I have to say delete simply because without the Atlantis building it's not much of an image. In fact, except for the law, I'd probably crop it rather aggressively top and bottom into a panorama, and then you'd have nothing but the building prominent in the middle of an otherwise dull panorama. -- But I don't feel strongly at all, it will be interesting to see what others say. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Seams to be more landscape than architectural picture, isn't it? --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Well in truth it is part of a collection of photographs taken of the Alantis of varying zoom; this one was uploaded originally because the zoom was so far out that it could be considered a landscape photograph, and while there is a case for using de minimis in this way, overall, it is weak. It is very subjective but the policy page does talk of "intention", of which in this case that particular building was intentionally the main subject of the image. Since it is a photograph I uploaded, I don't have a strong opinion in favour of deletion, though I stick to a weak delete position. CT Cooper · talk 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, I'm afraid the case is too weak for de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that this map wasn't based on any other data (satellite imagery, database, map, etc.), free or not. It would mean the uploader walked along a river and several road with a GPS device in their hand. –Tryphon☂ 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
A scan of a contemporary map, probably from a textbook of some kind; unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Two other images of the same map from the same uploader, File:New France 3.JPG and File:New France 4.JPG are nominated for deletion for the same reasons, and those deletion discussions point to this discussion. If the determination here is to delete for copyright reasons, they too should be deleted. If the determination here is to keep, the uploader has indicated on his talk page that he would prefer File:New France 3.JPG to be kept, with this image and File:New France 4.JPG deleted as duplicates. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - probable copright violation; left bottom corner may have some info, but I cannot read it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader has revised the image to show that it is from a 1942 book called "World History". I will leave him a note asking for further publication details. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is not 1949 the correct publication year? Could be {{PD-US-no renewal}}, but uploader would need to give good evidence for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct, the last copy was 1949, I checked--Harfang (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is not 1949 the correct publication year? Could be {{PD-US-no renewal}}, but uploader would need to give good evidence for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader has revised the image to show that it is from a 1942 book called "World History". I will leave him a note asking for further publication details. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if we can keep it, do we want it? The left side is cropped off -- so both part of the title block and all of California are missing. Therefore, I doubt that it has any educational use. The subject is very well covered by a series of 100 maps beginning with File:Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1750.png which detail all the changes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- California was never on this map. The map was being used to show the location of forts built by the Spanish, French and English before the seven years war. As far as I am concerned,
the map is legal usage because the World History book I got it from was last published in 1949. In Canada, it is more than 50 years old, making it legal. In the USA, the copywrite was never renewed. If you don't like the small piece of the title block missing, I redid the map without it.--Harfang (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- How do you know that the copyright was no renewed? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wallace Caldwell died in 1961 and there was no renewal of the book.--Harfang (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Author's death or the absence of reprints are irrelevant, renewal should be done by the copyrightholder, in this case the publishing company. Read en:US copyright law for more information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I checked, the company no longer exists. Last book publication, 1955. So, {{PD-US-no renewal}}.--Harfang (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just because the company ceases to exists doesn't mean that there is no longer a copyright holder. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Without knowing anything about the facts of this case (but quite a bit about US IP law and practice), I would guess that either the publisher was sold and the buyer now owns all the copyrights or, less likely, when the company was liquidated, the copyrights went to a new owner. It would be very unusual for a publisher to just disappear and not have someone end up owning its copyrights. You need to look for the book in the database of renewed copyrights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just because the company ceases to exists doesn't mean that there is no longer a copyright holder. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- This book was published and bought in Canada where I live. The law stipulates that it's copywrite has expired. This is the law of Canada, an independent country with it's own rules and regulations, and I will uphold that law.--Harfang (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- All true, but the Wikimedia servers are located in the USA and we require that images be free for use in the USA as well as their country of origin. Very few books published in Canada do not also have a US copyright, so in order to keep this image you must prove that it is {{PD-US-notrenewed}} or otherwise free in the USA. Our rules may be difficult, but we insist on them to maintain our integrity as "a database of 7,504,099 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Harfang, people aren't making this difficult for the sake of difficulty. But as an uploader here on the Commons, you need to understand the rules. As explained at COM:L, when one is claiming public domain status, images on the Commons need to be public domain in both the source country (in this case, Canada) and the United States (where the Wikimedia servers are located). This has nothing to do with Canada being independent or the upholding of Canadian law.
There is the possibility that you we can use the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template here,but first you are expected to undertake the necessary research as to the copyright status in the U.S., so that the image is of maximum use to the project If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask, because it is also the responsibility of other contributors to help uploaders who are not as familiar with the requirements. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)- Actually, the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template wouldn't likely be appropriate in this case. A Google search indicates that Benj. H. Sanborn & Co was an American publisher; the likelihood is that this book may have been published in Canada, due to the duties and other import taxes in force in Canada at the time, but was probably just a reprint of an American world history textbook, possibly with some Canadian content tossed in. The presumption is always that material is copyrighted unless one can show otherwise. This map would appear to be copyrighted in the U.S.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- This 1950 Library of Congress Copyright Office catalogue (page 339, listed under the author name Caldwell, Wallace Everett) shows that the book was published under the title "World History" in the U.S. in 1949.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template wouldn't likely be appropriate in this case. A Google search indicates that Benj. H. Sanborn & Co was an American publisher; the likelihood is that this book may have been published in Canada, due to the duties and other import taxes in force in Canada at the time, but was probably just a reprint of an American world history textbook, possibly with some Canadian content tossed in. The presumption is always that material is copyrighted unless one can show otherwise. This map would appear to be copyrighted in the U.S.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was able to get a hold of the US copy at the library, the map on New France is not in this copy. The maps start with
- Harfang, people aren't making this difficult for the sake of difficulty. But as an uploader here on the Commons, you need to understand the rules. As explained at COM:L, when one is claiming public domain status, images on the Commons need to be public domain in both the source country (in this case, Canada) and the United States (where the Wikimedia servers are located). This has nothing to do with Canada being independent or the upholding of Canadian law.
- All true, but the Wikimedia servers are located in the USA and we require that images be free for use in the USA as well as their country of origin. Very few books published in Canada do not also have a US copyright, so in order to keep this image you must prove that it is {{PD-US-notrenewed}} or otherwise free in the USA. Our rules may be difficult, but we insist on them to maintain our integrity as "a database of 7,504,099 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I checked, the company no longer exists. Last book publication, 1955. So, {{PD-US-no renewal}}.--Harfang (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Author's death or the absence of reprints are irrelevant, renewal should be done by the copyrightholder, in this case the publishing company. Read en:US copyright law for more information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wallace Caldwell died in 1961 and there was no renewal of the book.--Harfang (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
US territory after the signing of Treaty of Paris 1783, which shows US territory to the Mississippi border. Therefore, it is Canadian content, and Canadian law should be upheld. Thank you for your cooperation.--Harfang (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Harfang, you're not listening to what people are saying. As for the U.S. copy you got at the library, please tell us the library so we can verify. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I heard you well. If the map is included in the US editon, the copywrite was renewed. But it is not in the US edition. You may check for yourself and phone the library. Telephone number 418-835-8595, Mrs. Demers, Head-librarian. Opened between 1 PM and 9 PM on Thursdays and Fridays. Closed on Mondays.--Harfang (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- What library? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The catalogue for the Reseau des bibliothèques de la ville de Lévis has no book by this title, or any book by this author.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't believe me, then check in the Montréal or Toronto library system, and ask them--Harfang (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand. The onus is on you to show that the image is in the public domain. You made a dubious claim that you were able to find the U.S. edition in a library that has no record of the book in its catalogue. It isn't an answer to suggest that someone can go looking for it elsewhere. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I heard you well. If the map is included in the US editon, the copywrite was renewed. But it is not in the US edition. You may check for yourself and phone the library. Telephone number 418-835-8595, Mrs. Demers, Head-librarian. Opened between 1 PM and 9 PM on Thursdays and Fridays. Closed on Mondays.--Harfang (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Harfang, you're not listening to what people are saying. As for the U.S. copy you got at the library, please tell us the library so we can verify. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't actually find any evidence on the internet that Benj. H. Sanborn & Co ever published in Canada or that there was a Canadian edition to this book. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Harfang has changed the image description and advised on his talk page that the source is the 1957 Atlas of Canada published by a department of the Government of Canada. Which would mean that the Crown copyright would have expired if this were true. But the 1957 atlas is online, but unless I am mistaken, it does not appear to contain the map in question.Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Scan of what appears to be a contemporary map of New France; unlikely to the work of the uploader, and no evidence to support the PD-Canada tag. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Possessions Françaises en Amérique.tif for discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Scan of what appears to be a contemporary map of New France; unlikely to the work of the uploader, no evidence to support the PD-Canada tag Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Possessions Françaises en Amérique.tif for discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. US government sites displaying this work have identified it as being created by Lynette Cook, who has charged fees for commercial use.--Bdell555 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
image is currently on fr.wikipedia.org main page; discussion moved here from File talk:Gliese 581g.jpg
[edit]
The image can be found on http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/Gliese_581.html. The guidelines state that:" NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". There is no copyright claim as far as i can see, only a credit. Jillids (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- "accreditation" (crediting) is the most basic part of copyright law, images on the NASA website that are public domain are not credited. For example I'm fairly certain as an ESA image this [5] is copyright, and as such it is credited "*Image Credit*: European Space Agency" despite seeing some random websites claiming this is a public domain NASA image. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't find this image on nasa.gov, nor can TinEye or Google Images. Source is extremely inspecific. NASA sometimes hosts non-free media, and we need a specific source and host page to verify license. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This is copyvio. The image, [6], is credited on the NASA website to another party (Lynette Cook) which according to [7] means it is copyright and not public domain. As this is an artist's impression I cannot see why a similar image cannot be created that is free-use so this image doesn't appear to satisfy fair-use, unfortunately. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a native speaker of english but isn't credited just say how made the image and not that it's copyrighted. Jillids (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Accreditation is part of copyright law, see above.ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A slightly cropped version is here [8], caption "This artist rendering provided by Lynette Cook, National Science Foundation, shows a new planet, right. Astronomers have found a planet that is in the Goldilocks zone -- just right for life. Not too hot, not too cold. Not too far from its sun, not too close. And it is near Earth -- relatively speaking, at 120 trillion miles." She has a website at [9], and an email address there. Tomruen (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
![[8]](http://www.startribune.com/photos/?c=y&img=1newearth093010.jpg){kind=link}
- It's still copyright and I sincerely doubt we'll get suitable permission. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've sent an OTRS request to lynette [at] spaceart.org. If I don't come back here to update, that means I never received approval.--Bdell555 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've nominated an image with the same problem, File:485014main orbit comparison full 946-710.jpg, that was in the same category as this one. Hope I did it right, first time! ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've been in email contact with Lynette. But someone else has also contacted her which has created some confusion. Anyway, re File:485014main orbit comparison full 946-710.jpg, I think that image has less of a problem because it is credited to NSF and there are some clauses out there that say a credit to NSF means public domain.Bdell555 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've received a response from the creator giving the green light to "post on Wikipedia" but I'm not going to bother forwarding on to Permissions because I'm not aware of a Wikipedia-only permissions process. Creator acknowledged that enforcement of her copyright rendered impractical by US government's use rights to distribute to anyone "for press release/educational purposes," but creator in fact retains copyright. We will have to delete as image is not legally public domain and creator had no comment re my query about willingness to grant commercial rights.Bdell555 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. No commercial rights released = delete from Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The image isn't accurate anyway. Since the planet is tidally locked it should look quite different from this artist's representation, which shows us pretty an Earth-like planet. RedAndr (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Author is not a US Government employee, so PD-USGov cannot apply. Wikipedia-only permission, while gracious, does not meet our needs -- and of course completely understandable that someone making their living off their artwork would not want to freely license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Hammersoft, clear case of copyright issues. If we want an artist's impression it should not be too difficult to make one. Icalanise (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about Move to en.wikipedia as Fair Use with permission. Apparently there are precedents for on Wiki only use, albeit perhaps only on en.wikipedia. Note that Template:Non-free_with_permission exists on en.wikipedia. Of course, that still means closing discussion to delete here, but I just raise it here for possible advance discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- An objection to that would be that the image violates some basic principles of lighting. The phase angle of the planet is completely wrong for the depicted position of the star. More problems exist with the rendering of the star itself. While I appreciate there are artistic reasons for doing this, since an encyclopaedia should be dedicated to accuracy I'm not sure whether it is really worth going to all the trouble to preserve it on Wikipedia. Icalanise (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- One note -- as that template you reference states, the image would have to be valid under en-wiki's fair use guidelines to stay there. I'm not sure it does, because it's possible for someone else to make a "free" graphic themselves. The Wikipedia-only permission does not help with that determination; the template is just an additional note for images which were kept for other reasons. However, that is a question for en-wiki, not here -- feel free to bring it up there, or upload it to en-wiki to try. But as it stands, this seems like a pretty straightforward deletion to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
72.192.16.123 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be no merit to this request, and it seems merely a nuisance act, as the image is clearly a widely used image and properly designated as Public Domain release by NASA. ~ Kalki (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
