Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Posible copyvio newspaper 190.160.25.70 17:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep USGS, http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_bubi_l.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep Vandalism by banned user. --Diego Grez return fire 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination by vandal. ZooFari 23:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Posible copyvio album Rodrigo Gomez (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is it even copyrightable? The words "The Beatles" on a white square? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Vandalism by banned user. --Diego Grez return fire 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Obvious case. ZooFari 23:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html --Rodrigo Gomez (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a) ineligible and b) the whole book has passed out of copyright and c) the linked notice applies to the current version of the encyclopaedia Britanica, not the older ones. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Massive disruption from banned editor a.k.a. Cristián Berríos a.k.a. Marcelo Ríos. Recommend closing this and the other nominations (on my talk page) as pure disruption. Diego Grez return fire 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Private image, not in scope. --GeorgHH • talk 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation claimed as own work. Clearly marked TM (Trade Mark). Only upload of user. Why would the holder of a commercial copright for a logo release that logo to the public domain? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-notable person; unused; no educational use. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Promotional picture used in user page before it's deleted as promotiona Motopark (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Re-uploaded as German-American Shooting Society.jpg because of misspellings in current title Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
deleted by Túrelio Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Although it says "Nachdruck verboten! "... there does not seem to be enough on this title page to make it copyrightable, compare Threshold of originality#Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep definitelly not copyrightable according to german laws. "Nachdruck verboten" is not a copyright restriction, but most likely refers to counterfeiting (as with money). --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Das alte Werkfernverkehr-Buch ist mein Eigentum bzw. befindet sich in meinen Besitz ! --Elkawe (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nachtrag: Das Werkfernverkehr Buch gibt es schon lange nicht mehr zu kaufen (siehe auch GüKG) uund es ist dementsprechend natürlich nicht mehr gültig. --Elkawe (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ich hoffe, du siehst ein, dass die Angabe Author=selbst schlicht Unsinn ist. --Leyo 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Leyo, du hast richtig gehofft, denn ich habe das Werkverkfernverkehrs-Buch nicht selbst gemacht. --Elkawe (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ich hoffe, du siehst ein, dass die Angabe Author=selbst schlicht Unsinn ist. --Leyo 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nachtrag: Das Werkfernverkehr Buch gibt es schon lange nicht mehr zu kaufen (siehe auch GüKG) uund es ist dementsprechend natürlich nicht mehr gültig. --Elkawe (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to doubt that this is uploader's own photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Subject also passes PD-Textlogo. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Elkawe (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Nachtrag: Ich habe das Bild auf der IAA selber gemacht und passend bearbeitet bzw. ausgeschnitten. --Elkawe (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to doubt that this is uploader's own photo. It is a photo of something that is not protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. Logo is not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Elkawe (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Nachtrag: Ich habe das Bild auf der IAA selber gemacht und passend bearbeitet bzw. ausgeschnitten. --Elkawe (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Tiresome accusations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Elkawe (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Elkawe (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Amtliches Werk, Ineligible. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ineligible/Amtliches Werk. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Das alte "Persönliche Kontrollbuch" -Blatt ist mein Eigentum und befindet sich in meinem Besitz. --Elkawe (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nachtrag: Das war gesetzliche Vorschrift zusätzlich zum Tachograph, der keine EWG Zulassung hatte. Ab den 1. Jili 1979 musste bei allen LKW über 3,5 t zGG einer eingebaut sein. --Elkawe (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Although it says "Nachdruck verboten! "... there does not seem to be enough on this page to make it copyrightable, compare Threshold of originality#Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Der Nachdruck ist nicht mehr verboten, denn diese Werkfernverkehr-Blätter gibt es nicht mehr bzw. man kann diese auch schon lange nicht mehr verwenden. (Siehe deutsches GüKG) Das Blatt ist mein Eigentum, weil ich die ganzen alten Werkverkehr bzw, Werkfernverkehr-Unterlagen von der Firma extra zur Werkverkehr-Historie bekommen habe.
- Dann müssten auch alle Bilder (bis auf die LKW Bilder) die sich auf dieser Seite befinden ebenfals gelöscht werden, was den angeblichen Nachdruck Verboten betrifft.
- Der Unterschied vom Nachdruck, um das Blatt zu benutzen und einem Bild sollte dabei auch beachtet werden. --Elkawe (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Relicense as {{PD-GermanGOV}}. Ineligible, too. "Nachdruck verboten" is not about copyright, but about counterfeiting. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not the government, but a private publisher, "Verkehrsverlag J. Fischer". They made a form that assists in keeping the records required by law. My guess is that the regulations would leave not enough room for originality -> Keep with {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not the government, but a private publisher, "Verkehrsverlag J. Fischer". They made a form that assists in keeping the records required by law. My guess is that the regulations would leave not enough room for originality ->
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep False accusations! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Passes both {{PD-textlogo}} and (as presumably taken in germany) {{Panoramafreiheit}}. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Elkawe (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Vacation picture, not helpful for people who want to see the mountain. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 09:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
User claims to have uploaded this image under a CC-BY-SA license, but the image itself shows a non-free general copyright notice. Wutsje (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It does not matter. Feel free to remove the watermark if it bothers you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
not own work, no proof that the image is PD Amada44 talk to me 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Bolivia has a 50 year copyright term. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Watermark (Againist policy) Common-Man (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a reason for deletion, it's a reason to remove this watermark. That's why {{Watermark}} is not a redirect to {{Speedy}}. Trycatch (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Who or what is "The Freebz" and why would they release their "official logo" to the public domain? Copyright issues apart, it has no educational value whatsoever. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"Picture of Indian World Jazz Artist Sandhya Sanjana". Claimed as own work, this looks like a professional publicity photograph (sole upload by this user). [User:Anatiomaros|Anatiomaros]] (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its also available here, 1st picture in facebook Google Search - --Common-Man | My Interactions 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per above. Trycatch (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo of a commercial organisation. Not obviously the uploader's own work, OTRS release would be required. Too complex for PD-textlogo Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Shows non-free logo, not de minimis, and no freedom of panorama for 2-d artworks, posters, &c in the UK. See COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no encyclopedic value, useless Frédéric (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Generally, I think certain educational posters, even if self made, could find uses on Wikimedia projects. But this is about as minimal as posters get: how long to produce something on these lines with Inkscape if needed? In the bottom left hand corner there's a link to the website of Maziar Zand the author of the poster: is this the same person as the uploader? --Simonxag (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, just an empty picture, useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US (see COM:FOP#United States) JeremyA (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Go ahead, I have no objections! --JovianEye (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 2006 US sculpture. Trycatch (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The image at Flickr is marked "© All rights reserved". The uploader at en-WP, en:User:Ade oshineye, is not the photographer. maybe he got confused and wanted to upload his own photo of Posy Simmonds, which is licensed CC-BY-SA-2.0? In any case, this photo has no free license, and there's no evidence it ever had. Lupo 21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The stated source is private & there is no evidence Schiferli ever licensed this. --Simonxag (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Sadly, the picture wasn't properly flickrreviewed at the time of upload (see [1]), and now we have to delete it. Trycatch (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
self promotional, out of scope Esteban (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete does not seem to be a notable footballer. --Simonxag (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image, nonsensical because the Netherlands did not play against Brazil in that tournament; also possible copyvio of both the federation's logos Santosga (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete The logos are hardly incidental. --Simonxag (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- When a decision is reached, please also apply it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Netherlandsoverbrazil.jpg. --Santosga (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim of free use for any purpose is dubious and lacking in evidence to show that the label has released all rights to the image. C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Vacation picture. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 10:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence is incorrect. Image includes copyright Royal Mail logo. Maidonian (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence is incorrect. Image includes copyright Royal Mail logo. Maidonian (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence is incorrect. Image includes copyright Royal Mail logo. Maidonian (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused banner of [2], website with no notability or article in it or any other wiki project - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"Image courtesy Edward Cheung", this is not a NASA photo. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Derivatives: File:Mike Eman.png & File:Fredis Refunjol.png. Multichill (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused unidentified three-letter symbol with resolution too low to be of any use Santosga (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of musical band with no notability or article in es or any other wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work packaging photos. GeorgHH • talk 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I've cropped out copyrighted package, keeping the game.com modem. Trycatch (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - All the images in commons cannot be used on all the wikipedia's. More over this image can be used for educational purposes like playing a musical instrument... We cannot delete it by marking unused private image...--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. What User:Binukalarickan says is true, but this is a low quality image and we have many hundreds of images of guitar players. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The disclaimers at the Imperial War Museum state the works to be used free of charge for educative purposes, which is not enough. "Misleading contexts" are not allowed and, more important, commercial use seems to need authorization. Even more, if the museums "done its best to ascertain all known copyrights", it's clearly stating that copyright does not belong to them, so they may not be able to release under their terms (t would either belong to someone else, or have an expired copyright) Belgrano (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright tag that was added is incorret, the IWM doesn't license its collection freely. Justin A Kuntz (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
selfmade political parody made from derivative works Tekstman (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted image (see e.g. here). Leyo 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'd say Keep, because only the idea was stolen, no actual graphics. Ideas are not protected by copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- ?? --Leyo 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rethinking this... Maybe the graphics is really stolen, too. At first, I thought it was just about the idea of the black and white sheet. But ideas alone, might they be as
goodsuccessfull as this one aren't protected by copyright (this is like with scientific developments - the ideas behind scientific papers are not protected). Also, this image seems rather out of scope and unusable for me. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)- Just have a look at the kicking sheep and the sheep being kicked. The shapes are identical to these. Hence, this is a really clear case IMHO. --Leyo 08:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rethinking this... Maybe the graphics is really stolen, too. At first, I thought it was just about the idea of the black and white sheet. But ideas alone, might they be as
- ?? --Leyo 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Close examination shows that the four sheep were taken from the cited image. Copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no encyclopedic value, self promotion ?; useless Frédéric (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
quality too bad Isderion (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
quality too bad Isderion (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Original 3d work is in public domain, but no license or permission for photograph nor any evidence for such on the stated source site. Simonxag (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - as nominated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Not enough time yet for full enquiry; I've updated the website provenance, which I initially got wrong, and taken "reasonable steps" to establish source, which are set out on the image page. There's no need to rush with this, since the actual diorama subject of the image has been sold at auction (in 2003!) and whose current location is unknown- this makes a free replacement somewhat difficult to establish. But from my experience looking at the image (which was a postcard on sale at the museum in question), its coloration and style date it to the 1930s at least; hence my tag on the image page. I'm still looking into this, so it's premature to delete in the absence of full information; however what we have thus far should be enough to protect it. These things are difficult enough if you could spend 24 hours a day on them; but that's time I don't have. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Move This image can be moved to any wikipedia, still its licence clears, free replacement somewhat difficult to establish is going into the fair use terms..
- Have now uploaded a fair-use copy to en:wiki since I have had no reply to any of my enquiries. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Watermark Common-Man (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep watermark is not a reason for deletion, take a look at Category:Images with watermarks. Trycatch (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Image can be obtained without watermark or can be cropped to avoid water mark, Commons strongly dis agrees the use of water mark as credits.
- This is not a historical image
- Non-watermarked image can be obtained
- Or it can be cropped to remove the watermark.
- This image contains the logo of bollywood hungama, Where that logo is not a free image
- Watermark can negatively influence the neutrality of images, or be considered advertising, and cannot be used on certain projects.--Common-Man (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
quality too bad Isderion (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but I don't think we have too many alternatives here... --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- is that so? Category:School gymnasiums (incl. sub categories) + Category:Gymnasiums (schools) (incl. sub categories) provides some alternatives... --Isderion (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really find many simmilar images there. Most are pictures of the buildings from outside. Or pictures with lots of crowd. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- is that so? Category:School gymnasiums (incl. sub categories) + Category:Gymnasiums (schools) (incl. sub categories) provides some alternatives... --Isderion (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Behalten, Das Bild (Foto) habe ich von einem kleinen Kissen gemacht und dieses Kissen ist mein Eigentum. --Elkawe (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Nachtrag: Reklame ist vom Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) / Ende 1970 - Anfang 1980 + diese Reklame gabs in tausendfacher Ausfertigung z.B. als Abziehbilder, kl. Papier-Fähnchen, kl. Kissen 20x20 wie dieses Bild usw. Ich kann mir auch die Erlaubnis vom BGL geben lassen. --Elkawe (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mach das bitte. Durch den Erwerb des Gegenstandes erwirbst Du nicht die Urheberrechte. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. derivative work Polarlys (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This image _looks_ like PD-old. But is it really? There is really no statement about who painted this, when it was painted and what the source is. Rosenzweig δ 11:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- According to this (see list at bottom) she was abbess 1816-1823. So if we assume that the drawing was created during her lifetime (which seems very reasonable for a portrait), it clearly is old enough. However, the image has very strange stripes in it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- And she does not really look like an abbess... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- If we assume the painting was made during her lifetime. I'd prefer certainty over assumption. --Rosenzweig δ 10:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure it could not have been made after she became an abbess. Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure it could not have been made after she became an abbess.
- You are aware we are not talking about a Roman catholic abbess of a nunnery but about an abbess of a protestant institution for unmarried or widowed women from the nobility? --Rosenzweig δ 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am well aware of that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Nothing. Nowhere. Absolutely not. No source. Polarlys (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.livetv.pk/images/celebrity/Mala_Aravindan_1.jpg (Sharp Image).This image is more likely up-sized from this.. Refer [3] and [4] - Sreejith K (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.livetv.pk/images/celebrity/Mala_Aravindan_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.livetv.pk/bollywood_actor/mala_aravindan.html&usg=__yvGNKqf1nhe7GKEJsPyxT9VYZSo=&h=244&w=180&sz=15&hl=en&start=0&sig2=MZCq_2fsV9t8LZZA_5LkSw&zoom=1&tbnid=DIKi5-gN1V6SNM:&tbnh=170&tbnw=127&ei=2mWlTMuIJILSsAPb47j9Dg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmala%2Baravindan%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D655%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1079&vpy=96&dur=405&hovh=195&hovw=144&tx=89&ty=106&oei=e2WlTIGSJYGavAPu-NXxDA&esq=5&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://s.chakpak.com/se_images/49459_215_190_true/mala-aravindan-poster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chakpak.com/celebrity/mala-aravindan/21304&usg=__9gUveDyiwb8g_nGCMY71BAIRnmw=&h=215&w=190&sz=8&hl=en&start=0&sig2=NtegbP54rdev9XdyYtDsGQ&zoom=1&tbnid=9jyRgGYFHpgeIM:&tbnh=170&tbnw=152&ei=2mWlTMuIJILSsAPb47j9Dg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmala%2Baravindan%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D655%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=567&vpy=115&dur=2756&hovh=172&hovw=152&tx=64&ty=128&oei=e2WlTIGSJYGavAPu-NXxDA&esq=5&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0){kind=link}
- Comment Well, livetv.pk page likely was fully copied (including photo) from an old Wikipedia article version -- compare [5] and [6]. Moreover, undoubtedly File:Mala_Aravindan.jpg is not an upscaled livetv.pk picture -- File:Mala_Aravindan.jpg has much more details. Second link you provide also can't be the source -- that photo cropped tighter than File:Mala_Aravindan.jpg. I don't know, if we can believe to the uploader -- the photo looks amateurish, but (s)he was indefblocked in en-wiki for sockpuppeting, and the photograph has scanner EXIF. Other files uploaded by the same user (including files uploaded via socks): this photo (QSS-32_33 scanner), 1 (no cam EXIF), 2 (HP scanner), 3 (QSS-32_33 scanner), 4 (Canon PowerShot A410). Not an easy case, I have no idea if this photo is copyvio or not, we don't have enough information to be sure... Trycatch (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If a scanner is involved, We can say, it is from a printed magazine....But QSS-32_33 scanned belongs to a color lab digital nagative making machine of Noritsu, But it will not scan in such smaller resolution. If the user provide the high quality version of this file, I think that this image can be kept--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a fan-upload..no user actions, till now..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
proszę o usuniecie tej fotografii. jestem jej autorem, sam ją zamieściłęmale nie jestem zadowolony z ujęcia. póki co nie chcę prezentować jej w internecie Kubafajny (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
Raz udzielona zgoda na publikację nie może zostać cofnięta. Ujęcie nie ma poważnych wad, zatem nie ma powodu, aby to zdjęcie likwidować.
License is nonrevocable. The frame does not have significant failings, no reasons to delete.
Julo (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No reasons to delete. To naprawdę nie jest zły obraz. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a copy of inferior quality of 
Serjio-pt (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Banknote 10 rubles 2004 back.jpg
It's a copy of inferior quality of 
Serjio-pt (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Banknote 10 rubles 2004 front.jpg
quality too bad Isderion (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, unfortunatelly. However, there very few alternatives to this one in Category:Showers (i.e showing the showers of a gym) --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Offers no intellectual value. Crude image. 69.86.72.74 11:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not a good reason to delete it. Cunnilingus is an encyclopedical subject and Wikimedia is not censored. What's more the subjects are not recognizable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per TwoWings. Further more Commons only have a few images of cunnilingus. MGA73 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be {{Own}}. Author listed as "hardttcore". Looks like account has uploaded nothing but copyrighted porn and would need valid source and COM:OTRS at least. Wknight94 talk 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Own not unlikely (see Pieter Kuiper arg)--DieBuche (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg; nominator, please consider mass DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Useful to illustrate sexual act of cunnilungus. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete，same File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG--shizhao (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Steindy (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Useful --Trockennasenaffe (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{Own work}} not unlikely. See other files from this user and their DRs. -- Common Good (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Possibly public domain because of age, but that can't be determined because of a total lack of source information. Sandstein (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This text could very well be own work, and is certainly not PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Question Why do you think this can't be old enough? --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Bundesdeutsches Heer" - the de:Bundeswehr was established in 1955. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- could also refer to de:Bundesheer (Deutscher Bund) ;) --Isderion (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Bundesdeutsches Heer" - the de:Bundeswehr was established in 1955. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Das Bild ist mein Eigentum und ist eine Fotokopie sowie auf Holz aufgeklebt. --Elkawe (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- und woher hast du das Bild? wer ist der ursprüngliche Urheber? --Isderion (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Das Bild hat mein Sohn von der Firma (Apetito) geschenkt bekommen und dort hing es lange herum. Die wollten es wegschmeißen und Er hat es mir mitgebracht bzw. als Bild geschenkt. Es gibt bei den Alter vom Bild (über hundert Jahre) kein Urheber mehr, der darauf irgend welche Rechte haben könnte und es steht nichts dergleichen auf den Bild drauf. Das ist irgendwann von vielen Menschen kopiert worden und ich habe es auch schon woanders gesehen. Ich könnte zum Beispiel den Text in alter Schrift abschreiben und als Bild wieder hochladen. MfG vom --Elkawe (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aber ich glaube dass es nicht älter als 55 Jahre sein kan, Soldatenscherz der Bundeswehr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Möglich, das es so ist, denn das Bild ist ganz untem am Rand mit einem sehr kleinen gedruckten Schriftzug versehen "Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung im Autrage des Bundesministerium Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit". Allerdings glaube ich nicht das die Bundeszentrale der Urheber (Schöpfer) ist. --Elkawe (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nee, dass kan ich auch nicht glauben. Anonymes Werk ohne Datum, aber nicht sehr alt. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- oh je du hast mich verkehr verstanden, aber schön geantwortet Pieter. Ich mache noch ein Foto wo der Rand besser drauf ist und lade es dann hoch! Ich wollte nur damit sagen, das die Bundeszentrale für ... das Bild bestimmt nicht selbst gemacht hat und das es das Bild mit dem Text sicherlich schon früher gegeben hatte. Aber ab wann gab es das und wer ist der dann Urheber ? Wenn kein Urheber festgestellt wird oder dieser nicht ermittelt werden kann, ist es dann auch eine Urheberrechtsverletzung ? --Elkawe (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ich dachte dass du glaubtest dass auch die Randschrift ein Scherz war. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- oh je du hast mich verkehr verstanden, aber schön geantwortet Pieter. Ich mache noch ein Foto wo der Rand besser drauf ist und lade es dann hoch! Ich wollte nur damit sagen, das die Bundeszentrale für ... das Bild bestimmt nicht selbst gemacht hat und das es das Bild mit dem Text sicherlich schon früher gegeben hatte. Aber ab wann gab es das und wer ist der dann Urheber ? Wenn kein Urheber festgestellt wird oder dieser nicht ermittelt werden kann, ist es dann auch eine Urheberrechtsverletzung ? --Elkawe (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nee, dass kan ich auch nicht glauben. Anonymes Werk ohne Datum, aber nicht sehr alt. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Möglich, das es so ist, denn das Bild ist ganz untem am Rand mit einem sehr kleinen gedruckten Schriftzug versehen "Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung im Autrage des Bundesministerium Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit". Allerdings glaube ich nicht das die Bundeszentrale der Urheber (Schöpfer) ist. --Elkawe (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aber ich glaube dass es nicht älter als 55 Jahre sein kan, Soldatenscherz der Bundeswehr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Das Bild hat mein Sohn von der Firma (Apetito) geschenkt bekommen und dort hing es lange herum. Die wollten es wegschmeißen und Er hat es mir mitgebracht bzw. als Bild geschenkt. Es gibt bei den Alter vom Bild (über hundert Jahre) kein Urheber mehr, der darauf irgend welche Rechte haben könnte und es steht nichts dergleichen auf den Bild drauf. Das ist irgendwann von vielen Menschen kopiert worden und ich habe es auch schon woanders gesehen. Ich könnte zum Beispiel den Text in alter Schrift abschreiben und als Bild wieder hochladen. MfG vom --Elkawe (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- und woher hast du das Bild? wer ist der ursprüngliche Urheber? --Isderion (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Hier am Bildrand steht dieser Text:
Herausgeber: "Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung Köln im Auftrage des Bundesministeriums für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit". Druck: Union Druckerei Frankfurt a. M.
- (Ich persönlich finde das dieser Aufklärungsauftrag auch in der Wikipedia richtig ist) --Elkawe (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank! Das sieht sehr echt und sehr amtlich aus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Ich persönlich finde das dieser Aufklärungsauftrag auch in der Wikipedia richtig ist) --Elkawe (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Urheberrechtsverletzung. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- keep als amtliches Werk natürlich gemeinfrei, behalten --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- so ein Quatsch... ist es in einem Mitteilungsblatt veröffentlicht worden? Hat es einen regelnden Inhalt? Wohl eher nicht... --Isderion (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Amada44 talk to me 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Diese Plakette ist mein Eigentum. Warum darf ich von meiner eigenen Ehren-Plakette kein Foto machen ?. --Elkawe (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Nachtrag: Diese Plaketten sind normal an fast jeden sehr alten Oldtimer-LKW zu sehen und sind dort in vielen verschiedenen km Ausferigungen nur am Kühlergrill angebracht. Dann wären nach meiner Meinung auch die alten LKW Logos + Abzeichen auch nicht ok / Die Km-Ehren-Plakette ist 8 cm groß. --Elkawe (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ob die Plakette Dir gehört oder nicht ist gar nicht relevant. So darfst du zB. ein Bild von einer Figur von Mickey Mouse (auch wenn die Figur dir gehört) nicht veröffentlichen da du nicht der Schöpfer der Mickey Mouse bist. Du hältst dann zwar die Rechte an dem Foto aber zur Veröffentlichung benötigst du auch die Zustimmung des Mickey Mouse Schöpfers. Das verhält sich bei der Plakette von MAN ähnlich. Ich möchte dich hier auf gar keinen Fall vergraulen und dir etwas gewaltsam aufdrücken. Vermutlich hätte MAN auch nichts gegen die Veröffentlichung einzuwenden... aber das weiss man halt leider nicht sicher. Und es ist ja besser, wenn du hier auf rechtliche Probleme aufmerksam gemacht wirst als später rechtliche Probleme zu bekommen (Was, zugegeben, bei diesem Bild unwahrscheinlich ist). Liebe Grüsse, Amada44 talk to me 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hier noch ein Auszug von hier:
- Wenn ich ein Bild von einem Gegenstand mit meiner Kamera mache, habe ich das Urheberrecht an diesem Bild. Kann ich es nicht so lizenzieren, wie ich will? Warum muss ich mich um die Rechte Dritter kümmern?
- Ob die Plakette Dir gehört oder nicht ist gar nicht relevant. So darfst du zB. ein Bild von einer Figur von Mickey Mouse (auch wenn die Figur dir gehört) nicht veröffentlichen da du nicht der Schöpfer der Mickey Mouse bist. Du hältst dann zwar die Rechte an dem Foto aber zur Veröffentlichung benötigst du auch die Zustimmung des Mickey Mouse Schöpfers. Das verhält sich bei der Plakette von MAN ähnlich. Ich möchte dich hier auf gar keinen Fall vergraulen und dir etwas gewaltsam aufdrücken. Vermutlich hätte MAN auch nichts gegen die Veröffentlichung einzuwenden... aber das weiss man halt leider nicht sicher. Und es ist ja besser, wenn du hier auf rechtliche Probleme aufmerksam gemacht wirst als später rechtliche Probleme zu bekommen (Was, zugegeben, bei diesem Bild unwahrscheinlich ist). Liebe Grüsse, Amada44 talk to me 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wenn du ein Foto von einem geschützten Original machst, erschaffst du damit ein neues, urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk (die Fotografie). Gleichzeitig existiert jedoch weiterhin der urheberrechtliche Schutz am Original - er verschwindet nicht dadurch, dass die Rechte am Foto dir gehören. Wenn du dieses Foto machst und veröffentlichst, tust du etwas, was nur der ursprüngliche Rechteinhaber darf. Du darfst deine Fotografie also nicht verwenden, es sei denn, der Schöpfer des Originals hat dir dafür die Erlaubnis gegeben.
- Heißt das, wenn ich ein Foto von einem Kind mache, das zufällig eine Stoffpuppe von Winnie the Pooh in der Hand hat, dass Disney dann die Rechte an dem Bild hat, nur weil denen die Rechte an Winnie the Pooh gehören?
- Nein. Disney hat nicht die Rechte an dem Bild. Es gibt zwei verschiedene Rechte, die hier in Betracht gezogen werden müssen: Die des Fotografen (das Foto betreffend) und die von Disney (die Stoffpuppe betreffend). Diese musst du unterscheiden. Frage dich: Könnte man mit diesem Foto einen Artikel über "Winnie the Pooh" illustrieren? Versuche ich, die Einschränkungen für zweidimensionale Bilder von Winnie the Pooh zu umgehen, indem ich ein Spielzeug fotografiere? Dann ist das Bild nicht erlaubt.
- danke für dein höflichen Hinweis Amada44. Muss ich nun MAN biiten mir eine Freigabe zu geben, obwohl diese Plaketten an allen alten Oldtimer-LKW am Kühlergrill angebracht sind und die bis Anfang der 1970ger Jahre noch vergeben wurden. MfG v Elkawe (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nein. Disney hat nicht die Rechte an dem Bild. Es gibt zwei verschiedene Rechte, die hier in Betracht gezogen werden müssen: Die des Fotografen (das Foto betreffend) und die von Disney (die Stoffpuppe betreffend). Diese musst du unterscheiden. Frage dich: Könnte man mit diesem Foto einen Artikel über "Winnie the Pooh" illustrieren? Versuche ich, die Einschränkungen für zweidimensionale Bilder von Winnie the Pooh zu umgehen, indem ich ein Spielzeug fotografiere? Dann ist das Bild nicht erlaubt.
- Keep per Elkawe. FOP, because placed on the outside of cars. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment FOP only applies on pictures of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places (i.e. squares, plazas). So FOP does not apply if the image here is not placed on the outside of a car (which it isn't unless the car is made of wood). Cheers, Amada44 talk to me 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Amada: Elkawe schreibt aber oben explizit, dass die Plaketen aussen, am Kühlergrill angebracht sind (vielleicht nicht exakt die abgebildete, aber das spielt wohl keine Rolle). --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, falsely labeled as own work. Sandstein (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete uploader's photo, but this fails COM:FOP#Germany because this is only temporary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Das Bild gibt es in Bad Essen überall im Ort sowie in der Gegend von Melle an allen öffentliche Plätzen. Vieleicht verstehe ich den nachfolgenen Text nicht richtig.
- Text-Zitat: Dieses Bild einer geschützten Arbeit fällt unter den Artikel § 59 des deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetz, nach dem es "Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht."
- Gruß vom --Elkawe (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aber dies hier ist nicht "bleibend". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Grade dann wäre es um der Historie gerecht zu werden, hier richtig aufgehoben, denn sonst weis später kein Mensch mehr wie die Reklame zu dieser Landesgartenschau ausgesehen hatte. Allein aus diesem Grund wäre es wichtig, das das Bild bleibt. --Elkawe (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aber dies hier ist nicht "bleibend". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Files of Nemo
[edit]- File:02 Janis Joplin - Mirada 1.jpg
- File:002 Marruecos.jpg
- File:002 Charlie Rivel.jpg
- File:001 Charlie Rivel.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto 3 E.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto 3 D.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto 3 C.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto 3 B.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto 3 A.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto E.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto D.jpg
- File:El lavatorio de Tintoretto B.jpg
- File:Deconstruccion 218 B.jpg
- File:Deconstruccion 204 F.jpg
- File:Deconstruccion 201.jpg
- File:Deconstruccion 018 A.jpg
User Nemo has taken some random images from the internet, then put a blur fliter on top and claimed own work. All the files listed here don't list the source file and I am very sure that Nemo didn't take the picture of Janis Joplin for example. --Amada44 talk to me 12:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Scope. There are probably copyright problems with the image of Janis Joplin, maybe not with the images based on Tintoretto paintings (we could go into legal niceties about photos of public domain paintings), but I think these pictures are private artworks without much usability. --Simonxag (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope, out of scope, out of scope...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete -- Out of scope (Good piece of blur....creative user)..--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Copiapó mining accident graphs
[edit]
The problem with those images is that the source is unfree, the question is, if the images are different enough to be kept. --Amada44 talk to me 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-09#File:MSJ.en.svg. These files should not have been tagged for speedy deletion, and should not have been deleted without discussion. And I do not see any reason to bring them up here again: information is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I preferred you first comment here before you edited again because it was free from acusations. Anyhow, the idea of this DR is that we have more opinions about it and that the result is a final one. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Files were not tagged, only one of the uploaders was notified. It is still not clear what the problem is supposed to be. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I preferred you first comment here before you edited again because it was free from acusations. Anyhow, the idea of this DR is that we have more opinions about it and that the result is a final one. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Information is not always free. See maps for example. How is this different to a map? The other thing which needs clarifying is, that if the source is not free, (but the information is?) should the non free source be quoted at all? This DR is not to get the images deleted but to clarify that. Amada44 talk to me 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This diagram is just great, however I am confused that it claims to be original research (which, I thought, was a major "no no" on Wikipedia?) and when I follow the link to the alleged author's original webpage/publication I see radically different diagrams (has it been moved?). I am unclear if the link needs to be modified, if it was ever legit, and/or if the authorship is acceptable. But again -- I do appreciate the diagram very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.141.186 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Factual information is not copyrightable. The way you express it is. For maps... you are determining how specifically detailed you want borders to be, which elements you include, the graphic appearance, etc. Factual information from the map would not be covered though. [One note -- unless a border is exactly the same as the surveyed border, I would think the map maker is generally making creative decisions on which details to omit, so the exact outlines you see on a particular map would be considered creative work, I would think, and not purely factual.] The other part is that a creative selection and/or arrangement of factual information can itself be copyrightable.
- As for the nominated images.... euf. These can be hard. Gut feeling to me, the MSJ ones are different expression of the same idea, so I think they are perfectly fine, as said in the undeletion request. Less sure on Minasanjose2... it is significantly different though, with I think the only potential issue being the outline of the mine, which is different from the original, but.. hrm. The sourced original is a map from the mining company provided to the newspaper I think. Most detail from it has been omitted. I may lean towards keep on that one too I think, but less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the MSJ ones: they appear to be original drawings based on the specified source.
- Delete Minasanjose2 for two reasons: 1) it appears to be a straight tracing of the source material, and 2) even with the source, I can't make heads or tails of it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The MSJ drawings are clearly done in a different style than the referenced source, the La Tercera site, are not the same illustration. If presenting information were copyrightable, it leads to the absurd conclusion the first news service to report an event would have a copyright lock on the story and no competing services would be able to mention it, even using words the differ from the first report. Moreover, Minasanjose2.svg shouldn't be deleted just because user Carnildo "can't make heads or tails of it": Annotation needs to be added to make it clearer.
- Keep As a first-time viewer of the drawing, I found the drawing useful to understanding the underground situation at San Jose; I hope they will not be deleted.
Quicksilver@ 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think the images are sufficiently different. This is not a direct copy. A similar diagram would probably emerge from textual sources. We allow many other such diagrams on Wikipedia, given that they are original works. As noted, factual information is not copyritable. Danski14 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I was referring to the first 3 images. The last one is similar, but is more of a direct copy of a map. Perhaps it should be discussed desperately. Danski14 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Who cares!! The important thing is to inform people! :P
- Keep I go along with Danski14. --Markscheider (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept the first three. Delete the last. Per the discussion and inspection of the source, the first three are quite different from the source. The last is more of a copy and is very hard to understand. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Images by Lewis Parker
[edit]- File:Fort Beauséjour 1.jpg
- File:Camp of the British 43rd Regiment during the siege of Fort Beausejour, June 1755.jpg
Both images are illustrations by Lewis Parker, a Canadian artist who is still alive. Under Canadian law, the images wouldn't normally be PD until 50 years after Parker's death. Parker does a lot of historic illustrations for textbooks and the like. While it is possible that the images were done as works-for-hire for the Canadian government (given that the image descriptions refer to Parks Canada and the Canadian Military History Gateway, although I couldn't find the images on either site), Crown Copyright expires 50 years after publication. We do not have creation or publication dates for either image, so the presumption is that they remain under copyright. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting! I have a Parks Canada booklet and Fort Beauséjour is in it, I don't see the other image. Are we allowed to use it? You be the judge. They are nice drawings, but if you feel they are still under copyrite, so be it. Thanks for looking into it!--Harfang (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If the photographer is unknown, we have no indication for PD-old. GeorgHH • talk 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is not valid about the municipality? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- A bit too vague for me. But looks like they collect old photos, and it's possible for visitors to ask these photos, so I don't know, maybe you are right. Trycatch (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is not valid about the municipality? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Very likely a copyright violation. DIN1451 was introduced 1936, it is unlikely that the author is already dead for 70 years. 62.143.126.29 19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fonts are actually not copyrightable, however. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- And also, this would be {{PD-anon-70}}, Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
German law applies here and both claims are simply untrue under german law. The font is actually copyrighted and PD still only applies when the author is dead for 70 years. Assuming PD when the author is unknown and the work is 70 years old is just unlawful. But it appears that you give a shit that you are infringing on copyright here with these lame excuses. Go on, you won't be the ones paying for that. -- 78.129.221.78 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong, read http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__66.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Fonts aren't copyrightable, according to w:WP:PD, even in the Germany.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Watermark Common-Man (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Image can be obtained without watermark or can be cropped to avoid water mark, Commons strongly dis agrees the use of water mark as credits.
- This is not a historical image
- Non-watermarked image can be obtained
- Or it can be cropped to remove the watermark.
- This image contains the logo of bollywood hungama, Where that logo is not a free image
- Watermark can negatively influence the neutrality of images, or be considered advertising, and cannot be used on certain projects.--Common-Man (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Image has OTRS permission and seems to show notable persons, so it is in scope. If a non-watermarked image would exist, this one could be deleted, but not before. Or, if somebody removes the watermark, this can be deleted, but again: First we must have better alternatives before deleting it.
- The logo is either covered by OTRS or could even be considered ineligible, the left side of it is rather blurred here.
- Commons does not have a neutrality requirement. It's up to the users of the image to judge whether it can be used. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, non-watermarked image can be obtained via removing of this half-transparent watermark. But deletion of this picture will not help. Trycatch (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
OTRS
[edit]
- Please take note that, OTRS permission is not covering their logo...
- This image can be cropped properly to avoid the deletion...
- As long as the logo is there this file need to go for deletion, Waiting for the removal of watermark is not a valid reason for keeping it...
- Please see this Commons:EXIF#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons
--Common-Man (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please take note that OTRS permission is not covering their logo. How do you know? Do you have an OTRS account? As the corresponding company has relased several photos for commons, I'd rather assume they aren't offended by the use of the logo, in contrary they would prefer it to be there for advertisement purposes (which is bad for image usage, but not a deletion reason). What has COM:EXIF to do with all this? There's no exif-data in the picture at all. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope you didnt look at this footing on the OTRS template Template documentation: Bollywood Hungama grants us permission to use some of their images under a cc-by-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it - please check before you upload
Please note that i didn't tell you to see the Commons:EXIF but i advised to see this Commons:EXIF#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons In this you can see that the usage of watermark is strongly discouraged... --Common-Man (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- first: This does look like a party or a press meeting. And yes, I agree that watermarsk are strongly discouraged. But they're not forbidden and not a reason for a deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If we promote the watermarking, it will destroy the commons policy as everybody will start to upload with there name imprinted on the photograph, Hope you got the negative side of this concept...--Common-Man (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - for such cases we have {{Watermark}} - Jcb (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The photographer is not uncredited. The name is written on the photo itself, but hard to read. Where does the claim that the author died 70 years ago comes from? How is that claim possible if the author is "uncredited"? How likely is it that an person is dead for 70 years in <100 years? Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Giovanny Baptista Sciutto was born in 1827 (see [7]), so probably he died before 1940. Or maybe the photograph was created by some uncredited employee in his atelier, in this case {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be fine. Trycatch (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sciutto was an enterprise, based in Genoa, see for example http://www.genovacards.com/genova/varie/buffalobill.html Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sciutto was an enterprise, based in Genoa, see for example http://www.genovacards.com/genova/varie/buffalobill.html
- In the United States, any photograph made before 1923 is subject to copyright laws in force at that time viz. 25 years from the date the work was created, plus an optional 25 year extension, making the copyright term a maximum of 50 years for any work created before 1923 from the time it was created. Before 1923, the date of the author's death is irrelevant for copyright purposes for any work that author created before 1923. Any work created after the law came into effect is copyrighted for 70 years after the author's death. That being the case Alexander's Ragtime Band (1910) is out of copyright even though Irving Berlin died in 1989 and his later stuff will continue to be copyright until 2059. As this photograph is pre-1923, it is out of copyright in countries who are signatories to that copyright treaty. This applies to Italy who is a signatory to that treaty. Keep Mike Hayes (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Many wrong. Files here must be PD in both, the U.S. and the country of origin. The country of origin, here Italy, has a copyright protection term of 70 years p.m.a., see Commons:Licensing. The author might be unimportant for copyright in the U.S. but on Commons the author is essential information and anything else but unimportant. Although it is not ok to declare an author unknown or not credited if the author is written directly in front of your nose. If you provide the information that an author is "unknown" you should be able to back this information up by a source. Note that unknown is not the same as not known to you or not researched by you. Thanks howevr @Trycatch to identifie Giovanny Baptista Sciutto or his studio as the author, the file appears to be public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the author was unknown, I said she was "uncredited" i.e. by the person who scanned the photograph. The pre-1923 law still applies unless you can prove that it doesn't by verifiable sources i.e. a statute or treaty. Mike Hayes (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The pre-1923 law applies for the U.S., anything published (not made/created!) in the U.S. before 1923 is pd. This requires evidence of publication. There is however no evidence here that the file was first published in the U.S., presumably (Pieter gives a hint) the files country of origin is Italy, see Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law. Files on Commons must be pd in both, the U.S. and the country of origin. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Not true. In the US something is "published" when it is put in a fixed form. A photograph is a fixed form. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Surely not. See U.S. copyright law Chapter 1 § 101. A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. This information however goes far above this deletion discussion. The information to close this request was already given by Trycatch and I agree to it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. Your source is not current. If you sing an original song which you have memorized but have never written down, you create it. When you write it down, or record it, you publish it. Mike Hayes (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously the legal definition differs from your personal point of view. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep seems pretty clearly PD-EU-Anon. The "author" that's written on the image is the company, not the photographer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
