Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
Sourced from internet, suspected copyvio Common-Man (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely that the Flickr uploader owns copyright on this image. Original photograph by Mark Pain of the Daily Mail per http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1317267/RYDER-CUP-2010-The-moment-Tiger-Woodss-challenge-Celtic-Manor-halted--photographer.html--— Andrwsc (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note that I had originally taged the file with {{Copyvio}}, but the uploader change it into a normal delete request. However, I think it is a clear copyright violation and ought to be speedy deleted, not take the usual 6-9 month "discussion" on Commons. — Andrwsc (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio. Armbrust (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyright violation, no need to wait seven days. Trycatch (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No convincing reason given why this image should be pd. "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website says it is public domain" certainly is no reason, this museum cannot declare any image to be in the pd. Rosenzweig δ 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg, it's the same picture, "Last Jew in Vinnitsa". Trycatch (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reopened per popular demand. Note that this book[1] states the photo was found in "a German soldier's personal album". This does in no way make it public domain, and unless we get more specific info about the author of the photo, it remains without proper source and thus unfit for Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep per {{PD-Ukraine}} see http://www.yivoinstitute.org/exhibits/holopix7.htm. Obelix (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is not disputed that the photo was taken in Ukraine. But that fact has no effect on the copyright status, what matters is where it was firs published and when. The archive is Russian, so it could very well have been in Russia too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also en:File talk:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg for further discussion and info on the image. --Rosenzweig δ 07:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Surely the sensible way would be to open an undeletion request based on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg, not uploading it again and deletion nominating it again. /129.215.149.97 09:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted: duplicate of a deleted file (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg for reference). Rama (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The USHMM does not say that the image is public domain (they state here that the copyright is owned by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). I am unable to find it at the Library of Congress website. This image was previously deleted in 2008 as there's no proof that it's public domain. There's a copy at en.wiki that's currently templated for fair use. Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the PD claim is based on the same argument as in w:Template:PD-HHOFFMANN: certain confiscated property is in the public domain in the United States. However, I can't find any evidence that this is confiscated property. According to [2], "The Collections Division is actively soliciting donations of original prewar, wartime, and immediate postwar family photos." This suggests that the memorial museum contains lots of images from lots of different sources, so we can't just assume that anything there is confiscated property. Also, it probably means that the museum has a mixture of published and unpublished material, as family photos usually are unpublished. Unless it is confiscated property, then the photo is copyrighted in the United States per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.
- As the museum collects material from various different sources, published as well as unpublished, I think that we will have to assume that this is unpublished unless other information becomes available and
Delete until it is 120 years old, per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of the uploaders is currently blocked and wrote this on his talk page:
Sigh. Anonymous, more than 70 years old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It does indeed seem to be anonymous from the information we have, so that should render it free in Germany, but the problem is the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Why was this restored anyway when it was deleted in 2010? And why do people think it is "anonymous"? It seems it was found in a soldier's album, but so far I havent't read anywhere that nobody knows who said soldier was. That he was/is not named in literature does not make him unknown in a legal sense, and it does make the image "anonymous". --Rosenzweig τ 17:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The USHMM website where the original version was copied from says: "Credit: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Library of Congress; Copyright: Public Domain" you can find the page by clicking the link on the page which will get you to [3], but USHMM urls change often so direct link might not work. It is a very famous photograph by unknown photographer made more than 70 years ago so {{Anonymous-EU}} should be fine. It was printed in countless books and magazines see fig 10.2 here for 1958 newspaper with it. The photographer is anonymous since I assume that if it was known someone would mention his name in all those publications. I know that some sources say that it was found in someone's album but that does not prove authorship. There seem to be also multiple "original prints" see [4] and [5], both of which are different than commons version. --Jarekt (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- "I know that some sources say that it was found in someone's album but that does not prove authorship": No. But neither does it prove that the image is really anonymous in a legal sense as required by German law (which is practically impossible to prove). As I have written in numerous deletion requests, this makes the provisions regarding pre-1995 anonymous German works practically worthless for us. --Rosenzweig τ 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to Berne Convention art. 5. [6] the country of origin is the country of the first publication of the photo. So at least in the eyes of the law it is most likely non German work. The earliest publication I am aware of is Finland, but I can only assume it was a well known and publicized image at that point. By the way as far as I can tell the image also meets requirements of {{PD-1996}}. --Jarekt (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whether {{PD-1996}} is satisfied or not depends on the country of first publication. If it was published in Finland before 1966, and if Finland was the country of first publication, then the photo satisfies {{PD-1996}}. If it was first published in some other country, then it doesn't necessarily satisfy {{PD-1996}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to Berne Convention art. 5. [6] the country of origin is the country of the first publication of the photo. So at least in the eyes of the law it is most likely non German work. The earliest publication I am aware of is Finland, but I can only assume it was a well known and publicized image at that point. By the way as far as I can tell the image also meets requirements of {{PD-1996}}. --Jarekt (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The point is: We simply don't know enough about the image (like the author and time and place of first publication) to really make a valid assessment of its legal status. In such cases COM:PRP mandates the deletion of the file. --Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- As with most images we host there is some degree of uncertainty. For most historical photographs "time and place of first publication" is hard to prove and might easily change is earlier publication is found. Our Precautionary principle is applied to the cases "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (my emphasis). But in this case we are dealing with 70+ years old widely published photograph by anonymous photographer, which has been in publication from at least 1950's and which has been assessed as "Public domain" by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In most other cases we treat such assessments as true until proven false. We trust Bundesarchiv assessments that they are the copyright holders to all the images they provided, and question such assessment only in rare cases when they are obviously wrong, like here or here. Same thing with files in Category:Files from Flickr's 'The Commons': if a well known institution goes on record claiming that file has no known copyright restrictions we trust their assessment, unless we have a prove that they made a mistake. --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- We trust their assessment? Only until somebody makes a deletion request voicing significant doubts. Which is what happened here. --Rosenzweig τ 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- DR does not mean "significant doubt" people often use DR mechanism as "I do not understand something so someone with more time should check it". If we had to apply Precautionary principle to each image with DR, than none would survive since we are almost never 100% sure of anything. --Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- We trust their assessment? Only until somebody makes a deletion request voicing significant doubts. Which is what happened here. --Rosenzweig τ 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do consider my doubts voiced in this deletion request to be significant. --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The current web page at the USHMM for this image does not claim the image is in the public domain. It states that the USHMM owns the copyright. It states that the image appears "courtest of Sharon Paquette". Corbis also claims they own the copyright: see here. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are apparently two contradictory USHMM pages:
- Only one of the pages contains the photo, but both pages refer to photo #64407, so they are obviously both talking about the same photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is confusing especially since one of those pages and large number of USHMM pages has no images. I suspect some partial website shutdown due to US government shutdown. I assume that the missing image on [9] is the original upload of the File:Einsatzgruppe.jpg see here. It looks to me like USHMM treats 2 different prints of the same image differently. They consider the print from "Sharon Paquette" as their own and the print from Library of Congress (with horizontal line above the grave) as PD. --Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The current web page at the USHMM for this image does not claim the image is in the public domain. It states that the USHMM owns the copyright. It states that the image appears "courtest of Sharon Paquette". Corbis also claims they own the copyright: see here. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which is only a further hint that the known facts about this image are not quite as crystal clear as we would like them to be. Hence my significant doubts (see above). --Rosenzweig τ 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some authorized Museum staff member(s) with the complete legal and practical knowledge – I think more comprehensive than ours - has made this decision. Majority of their WWII pictures are not PD. But they assessed this one as PD. I see no reason why we should question USHMM’s knowledge of copyright law, conscientiousness and the resulting statement on the website regarding this picture. Keep Boston9 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some authorized Museum staff member(s) with the complete legal and practical knowledge – I think more comprehensive than ours - has made this decision. Majority of their WWII pictures are not PD. But they assessed this one as PD. I see no reason why we should question USHMM’s knowledge of copyright law, conscientiousness and the resulting statement on the website regarding this picture.
- Which is only a further hint that the known facts about this image are not quite as crystal clear as we would like them to be. Hence my significant doubts (see above). --Rosenzweig τ 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I see no reason why we shouldn't think for ourselves. Especially in a case where employees of an American museum assess a non-US image like this one. For them it may be enough to assess the legal status in the US. For us, that is not enough. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Am I right in thinking that the problem has been reduced to finding this second, non-US license? But what is wrong with {Anonymous-EU}? Boston9 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I already wrote about that above. We don't really know where (and when) this image was published first, and we don't really know if it its truly "anonymous" in a legal sense. That we don't know the author does not automatically mean an image (or any other work for that matter) is automatically anonymous.
- I am also not sure the USHMM people are correct in their assessment of the copyright status of the image in the US. If you take a look at the Hirtle chart, section Works Published Abroad Before 1978, you can find [Published] 1923 through 1977, Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date: [Protected for] 95 years after publication date and similar cases. There is a very strong possibility that one of those "95 years after publication date" cases applies here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I share your thoughts. However, that is major risk to all our pictures which are marked as anonymous. Let us have some trust in USHMM staff and their work. Due to its profile and geographical location overwhelming majority of their pictures are non-US, so this Museum operates within a very challenging legal framework regarding copyrights. I am now aware of the overall statistics, but in the topics and places I am interested in, having a photo marked as PD by USHMM is not an everyday occurrence. But for some good reason they have marked this one as PD. So I would keep this photo. We can keep an eye on it and can always continue this discussion if the new facts or information become known. Boston9 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- We trust Bundesarchives when they claim CC licenses on similar images by anonymous photographers, see here. Also with other institutions, we usually trust their assessment until we have a proof that they are wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The problem is that we have no information on why the USHMM staff thinks that the photo is anonymous. There is also a statement that the image is "courtest of Sharon Paquette". Is Sharon Paquette the author? In that case, the photo isn't anonymous at all. A way to determine whether a photo is anonymous is to check whether the photographer was named the first time the photo was published. If the photographer wasn't named at that point, then it is unlikely that the photographer isn't anonymous. In this case, the first publication isn't specified, so we don't know whether the photographer was credited there. A minimum requirement should be to verify at least the first publication of the photo. Also, the claim that the photo is in the public domain in the United States is very dubious. This would require that the photo was published in the United States within 30 days after the photo's first publication, or that it is seized enemy property, of which we have no evidence. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since there are numerous old prints of the photograph, I assume that "Sharon Paquette" is a person that gave one of those prints to the USHMM. USHMM might have multiple prints of the photo and that is why there are different images with different metadata on their website. Nobody ever listed "Sharon Paquette" as one so I am not sure why you think she might be one. Problem with checking the first publication is that it is unknown for most images, so we usually have to settle for the oldest known publication, which might be changing. As for US copyright the requirement would be that the photo was not published in the United States within 30 days after the photo's first publication. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- {{PD-1996}} is not satisfied as {{PD-1996}} never is satisfied for German photos created after 1925. The requirement, {{PD-URAA-Simul}}, is that it was published in the United States within 30 days after publication in Germany. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above "According to Berne Convention art. 5. [10] in case of anonymous work the country of origin is the country of the first publication of the photo", and in case of Holocaust images it is rarely Germany. The oldest publication we found so far if Finland. --Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- {{PD-1996}} is not satisfied as {{PD-1996}} never is satisfied for German photos created after 1925. The requirement, {{PD-URAA-Simul}}, is that it was published in the United States within 30 days after publication in Germany. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since there are numerous old prints of the photograph, I assume that "Sharon Paquette" is a person that gave one of those prints to the USHMM. USHMM might have multiple prints of the photo and that is why there are different images with different metadata on their website. Nobody ever listed "Sharon Paquette" as one so I am not sure why you think she might be one. Problem with checking the first publication is that it is unknown for most images, so we usually have to settle for the oldest known publication, which might be changing. As for US copyright the requirement would be that the photo was not published in the United States within 30 days after the photo's first publication. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I share your thoughts. However, that is major risk to all our pictures which are marked as anonymous. Let us have some trust in USHMM staff and their work. Due to its profile and geographical location overwhelming majority of their pictures are non-US, so this Museum operates within a very challenging legal framework regarding copyrights. I am now aware of the overall statistics, but in the topics and places I am interested in, having a photo marked as PD by USHMM is not an everyday occurrence. But for some good reason they have marked this one as PD. So I would keep this photo. We can keep an eye on it and can always continue this discussion if the new facts or information become known. Boston9 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- But we do not know where and when the image was published first. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) acquired lots of images from several news agencies, among them ADN, the official news agency of East Germany. Included with these acquisitions were extensive usage rights, essentially the same rights those news agencies had, which means the Bundesarchiv may not be the author of said images, but owns full usage rights to them and can release them under a free CC license. At least that is what they say, and that is where we believe them.
The USHMM, on the other hand, does not claim to have acquired this image as part of a news agency image collection along with extensive usage rights. It seems they did acquire some print(s) of the image from one or more donor(s), and they simply claim that the image is in the PD, without even the slightest explanation why.
So: This image is very different from the Bundesarchiv images, and one simply cannot say we should trust the USHMM because we trust the Bundesarchiv. The Bundesarchiv gave us a reasonable explanation. The USHMM did not.
Once more: This whole debate shows that we simply don't know enough about the image (like the author and time and place of first publication) to really make a valid assessment of its legal status. In such cases COM:PRP mandates the deletion of the file. --Rosenzweig τ 16:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- One question: does it mean that you contacted USHMM and they have clarified the legal status of the photo in a way you have just described? Boston9 (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I haven't contacted them (nor have I claimed anywhere that I did). I was only recapitulating this discussion and the information available at the USHMM website. --Rosenzweig τ 21:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see. So I am afraid you should not speak so convincingly that USHMM had no right to have marked this picture as PD. Not without evidence or further clarification. USHMM is a well respected American institution acting in good faith, which is the basis for all our volunteering work at Commons. I trust USHMM, as I trust Bundesarchiv. Also, COM:PRP emphasizes significant doubt. There is always a high level of uncertainty regarding anonymous pictures from WWII we have here. This one is no different. I think this picture should be kept as long as USHMM declares it is in public domain. From pure legal point of view that is suffice. With this declaration it meets our licensing requirements. Boston9 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Boston9: Nowhere have I written that they have "no right to have marked this picture as PD". I merely pointed out the differences between this image and the Bundesarchiv images and that the Bundesarchiv gives us reasons to trust them, whereas the USHMM does not. Consequently, and as several legal aspects make it at least doubtful that the image is really in the PD (as discussed at length above), I do not trust them with this. Especially considering the contradictory information from them about this image (see Stefan4's contribution below; essentially they claim that the image is both copyrighted and PD). Also, once again, I do consider my doubt to be significant. The precautionary principle means that when there is such doubt, it has either to be dispelled by facts, or the file has to go from Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- One more: You write "There is always a high level of uncertainty regarding anonymous pictures from WWII we have here." You're quite right, and that is also the reason why none of these pictures should be on Commons unless their copyright status is perfectly clear. Which is rarely, if ever, the case. --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rosenzweig, I guess we mostly agree on facts and possibly even on probabilities that something is PD or not. The difference is in the probability thresholds: for me the fact that image is most likely PD based on partial information we have is good enough reason to keep the file, while for you if there is any missing information or uncertainties, anything less than "perfectly clear" than the image should be deleted. In US courts that would be a difference between Clear and convincing evidence that something is PD and beyond the shadow of a doubt that something is PD. I agree that in case of WWII images, and other historical images, we rarely can achieve beyond the shadow of a doubt certainty, but I do not agree that that's the "reason why none of these pictures should be on Commons". I think we might just agree to disagree on this matter. --Jarekt (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assessment, I don't think it is likely that this image is in the PD. At least not in the US, where the term of protection for this image would most likely be 95 years from publication—a term which clearly is not over yet for a 1941/42 image. Per the Hirtle chart, that term would apply in a number of cases, none of which is very unlikely. As for its country of (legal) origin/first publication: We don't even know which country that is, so how can we think it is likely that the image is in the PD there (where?) This is not an image from 1800, or even 1850, for which we could assume that any copyrights that existed have expired long ago. And even in such a case one could be wrong, the copyright laws of countries worldwide have lots of special terms and cases for e. g. works that were unpublished until recently. The arguments presented in this discussion are far from clear and convincing evidence that the image is in the PD.
- But anyway, this is not a court of (US) law, but an internal debate about the application of our own standards, specifically the precautionary principle. The Commons approach is not to host files when in significant doubt. A case where we know almost nothing definite (see discussion) except the place and approximate date the photo was taken (1941 or 1942) is clearly very doubtful. --Rosenzweig τ 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- But Corbis also claims they own the copyright: see here. That puts some significant doubt in my mind.-- Diannaa (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of historical PD images can be downloaded from Gettys or Corbis services that claim copyright on them. For example File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-2005-0039, Warschauer Aufstand, Kapitulation.jpg by August Ahrens can be found at Gettys images (Photographer: Keystone/Stringer ) and Corbis Images (© Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS). Same with File:Prisoners liberation dachau.jpg taken by US soldiers in Dachau, which you can find on Corbis. Or File:Warsaw Uprising - Cyprian Odorkiewicz and Rafałki.jpg which you can also find both on Getty Images (Editorial image #3422370) or on Corbis Images Image #HU040429. That seems to happen all the time. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is also that the USHMM doesn't only claim that it is in the public domain; the USHMM also claims that the photo is copyrighted. As mentioned above, the USHMM maintains two separate pages about the photo which contradict each other. This suggests that the USHMM doesn't have a clue of what it is talking about. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of historical PD images can be downloaded from Gettys or Corbis services that claim copyright on them. For example File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-2005-0039, Warschauer Aufstand, Kapitulation.jpg by August Ahrens can be found at Gettys images (Photographer: Keystone/Stringer ) and Corbis Images (© Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS). Same with File:Prisoners liberation dachau.jpg taken by US soldiers in Dachau, which you can find on Corbis. Or File:Warsaw Uprising - Cyprian Odorkiewicz and Rafałki.jpg which you can also find both on Getty Images (Editorial image #3422370) or on Corbis Images Image #HU040429. That seems to happen all the time. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- But Corbis also claims they own the copyright: see here. That puts some significant doubt in my mind.-- Diannaa (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -- Thanks to Stefan for putting part of my problem here so well -- the fact that USHMM has described this image as copyrighted in one place and PD in another eliminates any trust I might have in their opinion.
The other problem I have is that several of the comments above use the word "anonymous". Please, please, do not confuse "anonymous" and "unknown". In order to use the provision in many copyright laws that gives special treatment to "anonymous" works, it must be shown that the author intended to be anonymous. An author who is simply unknown to us is not "anonymous" and his work does not qualify for special treatment. There are some copyright laws that give special treatment to works by "unknown" authors. That is different from "anonymous", but even using the "unknown" rules requires doing a reasonable investigation -- not simply taking something off the Web from a site that does not give credit. This is a photograph by an unknown author, but we have no reason to believe that he intended to be anonymous and we cannot, therefore, apply the rules for anonymous works to this. Since we know that this is an image from around 1942, it is unlikely that its author has been dead for 70 years -- that is true even though the author was likely a soldier -- while being a German soldier in WWII was certainly riskier than many occupations, most of them survived the war.
So, we have an image by an unknown, but not anonymous, author who has probably not been dead for 70 years. We do not know where or when it was first published. First publication in most countries would leave it still under copyright. Therefore we can't keep it.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader says he found it on Google Images. MicroX (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation/false license. Infrogmation (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof this image is under a CC license. It mostly likely is copyrighted MicroX (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No, you don't become the copyright holder of a someone else's photo by copying it from a website. Infrogmation (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Unallowed file format (JPEG2K); could be converted to normal JPEG, except that none of the converters I have can decode it. May be simply corrupted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a copyvio to me but I can not decypher the watermark ALE! ¿…? 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Check this link http://www.todobailando.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/paula-chaves.jpg --Common-Man (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- So I can delete this image as a copyvio, right? --ALE! ¿…? 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Check this link http://www.todobailando.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/paula-chaves.jpg --Common-Man (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete for Sure..--Common-Man (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ALE! ¿…? 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope, personal image of poor quality Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
mistitled; re-uploaded as File:Grace Church School and Houses.jpg Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be the interior of a 1949 church. Netherlands FOP probably does not apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Windows in a doctor's practice built in 1900. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn, thank you Pieter. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, not in scope Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://jonasmelloradialista.blogspot.com/2009/06/copa-2014-ministro-promete-interceder.html Ednei amaral (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
derivative work of a picture that does not appear free of rights, cf. this tineye search. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Very cool image! But clearly derivative of unfree work. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if User:Rama/Personalities drawings can be kept, then certainly this one can. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
derivative work of http://24.img.v4.skyrock.net/246/plusbellelavie0/pics/134754016_1.jpg (work by France 3 to promote their television series "Plus belle la vie") (U.S. law applies on Commons and has a very low bar for originality) Hekerui (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The painting is not a simple derivat of the photograph. It seems to be normal that it bear resemblance to the person. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- It may be a computer-generated derivative of the photo. I am not familiar with the capabilities of en:Paint.NET, but I now doubt that this is a watercolor painted by the uploader. I am inclined to change my mind about this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ce fichier est mon travail Il n'est pas protégé par copyright.--Jeandefoix (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Est le fichier une reproduction technique d'une photo? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Simply doing a mirror image (as the user also did above) is not enough to avoid it being a DW. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless the user is Carlos Alberto Navarro, they did not take this picture in 1957 and it is a copyvio After Midnight (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - if not own work then {{PD-AR-Photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Image already exists on the English Wikipedia and Commons does not allow for copyrighted logos MicroX (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, surely {{PD-ineligible}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality (compression artifacts), not used anywhere, File:Universitario de Deportes (Lima).svg exists. Leyo 12:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. - unused poor duplicate --George Chernilevsky talk 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
no source, bad quality, not used or categorized since 2008, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
no source, bad quality, out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
not used or categorized since 2008, perhaps violation personal rights, no description, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
not used or categorized since 2008, perhaps violating personal rights, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this can not be tagged with PD-textlogo, there are several features of the image that go beyond a simple text ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal image, duplicates File:Picture 082.jpg. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Almost a duplicate, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a more-or-less faithful reproduction of a 2-D work, a commercial poster - which was certainly not freely licensed Seidenstud (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused, undescribed crude OpenOffice diagram. Could be converted to SVG if someone figured out an educational use for it, but without more information that seems unlikely. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
the link leads to a video on archiv.org and there to www.PartyDomme.com where it says: all rights reserved. Amada44 talk to me 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There are two more files from the same source:
- Amada44 talk to me 11:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of COM:PS (and uncertain author status imo) Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The copyright status of this logo on the website that it has purported to have come from is doubtful. I'm not sure that the contributor is the copyright holder of the work. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
This file and File:US Navy 060103-N-0000X-001 U.S. Navy file photo of the Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, 74th Secretary of the Navy.jpg are duplicates, I feel this one is lower quality, it looks to have had the brightness increased making the forehead look overexposed. Benchill (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept this one, deleted the other, as Pieter says, this one is widely used, the other is not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
and File:Wólka Orłowska - jedyne w Polsce skrzyżowanie mostu drogowego i kolejowego nad rzeką 2.jpg. The pictures were uploaded with non-commercial non-derivative clause: "Dopuszczalne niezarobkowe użytkowanie bez wprowadzania zmian, przy podania źródła." The uploader was asked in January (both here and in pl-wiki) to remove this clause, by (s)he didn't respond. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wólka Orłowska - jedyne w Polsce skrzyżowanie mostu drogowego i kolejowego nad rzeką 1.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
the source does not indicate this is a free image. Jonathunder (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of musician with no notability as decided here fr:Valérie Géry, also possible copyvio as this is obviously a commercial photo Santosga (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Not being used, and there is no Denmark-barnstar, so no need for a ribbon Skibden (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright infringement from waverlylabs.com Kevinrudolf30 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a movie poster. No permission givent that could prove a free release. High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, bad quality, useless Frédéric (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, orphan, useless Frédéric (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
False image licence. This trademark is not CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 109.243.234.57 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Author apparently not unknown, research required. Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I want to add that the author was added by the uploader in the meantime: Anna Seitenmacher (1878–1957) vom Atelier Lindendahl Cöln/Rhein - I however only watched this discussion, not the file. This 1916 portrait of Otto Liman von Sanders will be public domain in 2028. --Martin H. (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
shows artwork by another person without permission Saibo (Δ) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
shows artwork by another person without permission. Saibo (Δ) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Por duplicidad José Luis Filpo Cabana 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
the source does not indicate this is freely licensed Jonathunder (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No proof for public domain 80.187.103.73 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh come on guys, it's so hilarious how fast files get deleted without proper recherché. Go and read the clker.com terms of use there it's written clearly for everybody:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleshgrinder (talk • contribs) 15:48, November 14, 2010 (UTC)“[…] By uploading content, you certify that it is free from any copyrights and trademarks, and in case you are the copyright holder you hereby release it under the lastest version of the creative commons public domain dedication found here. […]”
clker.com terms of use
- Reopening this DR briefly:
- The site goes on to say,
- "The terms listed here are subject to change without notice. If you download clker.com's content and use it, you hereby agree that it is your responsibility to continuously check the terms of use for updates. In the event that the terms change and you do not agree with the new terms, you shall cease using any content downloaded from clker.com upon publishing those terms."
- That is unacceptable here because the license is neither perpetual nor non-revocable, both of which we require. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- But wouldn't this also apply to all the images from Flickr. A Flickr user also has the possibility to change his license. In this cases a bot ensures that the license was correct at the time the media file was uploaded. Shouldn't this apply to this file too? I don't want to force that this file stays online, but I think that it should be clearly stated why a file gets deleted. Just because an anonymous user states that a file could be non-conform is no reason in my opinion. Regards, Fleshgrinder (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly an anonymous user cannot delete a file -- it takes an Admin to do that -- but anonymous users can be very useful in finding problems. This is not any less of a problem just because an anonymous user brought it to our attention.
- The difference between clker.com and Flickr is that clker.com requires a user (Commons, in this case, and anyone who downloads the image from Commons) to watch clker.com for possible changes in terms and take the image down if the terms change toward being more restrictive. Therefore, the clker.com license is explicitly revocable. If you want to use an image from that site, you must agree to those terms.
- Flickr, on the other hand, allows its users to change the license for future downloads from Flickr, but they cannot change it retroactively, for past downloads. So once our bot confirms the Flickr license, the Flickr user is stuck with our use of it irrevocably under the license in effect at the time of the bot check. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you got me wrong on this with the anonymous user, that was not what I meant. For sure anybody is good to find errors and that's the base of community driven concept. I wanted to say, that the explanations of deletions are often not clear, especially for users who aren't so deeply into licenses and so on. But I understand your deliberations and that's really kind of you that you took some time to explain those facts to me. Regards, Fleshgrinder (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's certainly true that we are sometimes hard to understand, unless you read a lot of DRs. The only excuse I can make is that about 50 Admins make about 27,000 deletions a month (the other 210 Admins make the remaining 3,000) and we tend to work fast and cryptic, slowing down only when asked. Most of us are happy to explain things -- after all, a more knowledgeable community means less work for us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a poster, another pic of same user is detected as copyvio Common-Man (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Film screen shot Common-Man (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Image looks of professional grade however no metadata is available. No proof of license. Most likely copyrighted. MicroX (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No metadata. Most llikely copyrighted work MicroX (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
wrong license, no description, not used or categorized since 2008, perhaps violation personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, most likely personal photo, per 4028mdk09 Polarlys (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that this is an argentinian work Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No proof that the copyright has expired: "life of the author plus 70 years" is only possible if the author is really dead for 70 years but the proof for this is missing 80.187.103.73 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The photo is taken by Hugo Vogel here --Bauernfreund (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Where is this Photo taken from, where was it published? The uploader simply claims, that Hugo Vogel was author of the photo, but where can I proof this claim ??? "Hugo Vogel 1914" is no valid source! So where did the uploader find it? Scanned from a book? Which one? Found in the net? On which website? This way the uploader can claim everything, I want to see a valid source which I an everyone else can check. --77.20.92.48 22:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I opened this discussion again, since there is no source provided and there was just voting involved (Pieter Kuiper, Obelix) and the IP's questions remain unanswered. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No source provided (website of archive, book, magazine, …), Hugo Vogel was no photographer and was not at the front in 1914. Delete --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Vogel wrote about Hindenburg: Als ich Hindenburg malte, a 1927 book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. But who took the photo? --Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, the photographer was not named. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you know this from? Where do you even know from, that the image was taken from this book? --Polarlys (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it is a book "[mitt] viele s/w-Abbildungen von Originaldokumenten, Skizzen u. Bildern." Plausible source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe - but thats speculation, I dont know the book - the photo is from the book because Vogel maybe used it as reference work for his later painting of the Tannenberg Battle. Vogel portraited Hindenburg that time, but he not attended that August 1914 battle, so he cant be the photographer. He only visited the front later in January-May 1915 and September-October 1915. The photogtraph in question was distributed by Scherl and was published in various newspapers of that time. That regretably does not say us if the author is known or unknown but it may help to comb through old newspaper archives. --Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Do I get this right: I can upload any old photo and just pretend that it was taken by a known painter? Great!!! Now, I can upload as good as any photo I want. Surely, Martin and Pieter will find a suitable book in case someone correctly doubts my pretentions. So does anyone around here really knows where the photo is from? I mean really knows it with page number and title? --77.20.92.48 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- FYI: Martin appreciates encyclopaedic integrity as much as you and I do --Polarlys (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - unfortunately we don't have enough information to know if we may keep it - Jcb (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete per request of author. Unused file. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Needs permission from RSC-Energia, a private company, not an agency. See Commons talk:Licensing#File:485546main Soyuz TMA01-M.jpg 84user (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think that a sketch delivered from Energia and Roscosmos to NASA's new compound picture is automatically copyrighted --Ras67 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure about this, but it's only a technical drawing. Can this fit into the below template descriptions? I'm not sure about this... みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
|
This work is not an object of copyright according to article 1259 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006.
Shall not be objects of copyright:
|
 |
|
Comment – This license tag is also applicable to official documents, state symbols and signs of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (union level[1]).
Warning – This license tag is not applicable to drafts of official documents, proposed official symbols and signs, which can be copyrighted. Warning – This Russian official document, state symbol or sign (postage stamps, coins and banknotes mainly) may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document, symbol or sign. In such a case, this work is not an object of copyright if reused in its entirety but, at the same time, extracting specific portions from this work could constitute copyright infringement. For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps.
|
- Comment: technical drawings, like any other kind of drawing, are copyrightable unless there is some legal provision exempting it from copyright. The issue here is that it has not been clearly demonstrated that the image falls within the scope of {{PD-RU-exempt}} because RSC-Energia is a private company and not an agency of the Russian government, and there is nothing to show that the drawing amounts to an "official document". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Energia is not a private company, but :a state company and belongs Roscosmos. Therefore a sketch from Energia should be an official Roscosmos document and so falls under PD-RU-exempt.--Ras67 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- A state company is a corporate with the state as shareholder, not a state agency. And even if it were a document from an agencty, the Russian exceptions are here irrelevant, as this is not an official document but a project illustration. --Dereckson (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't fall in copyright exceptions. --Dereckson (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm putting this file under speedy deletion by my request; it seems the consensus is not in favor of copyright exemption. However, if anyone could make a derivative that is not copyrightable, feel free to replace it with a freely-licensed one. みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: No OTRS permission: Author request.
The uploader confirms that the source is his personal work (Source : Own work, but as author he mentioned : "Ami" (friend). However there is no OTRS permission sent yet. — Habib M'HENNI [¿tell me?] 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: No OTRS permission: Copyright violation: The uploader confirms that the source is his personal work (travail personnel) but as author he mentioned : "Ami" (friend). However there is no OTRS permission sent
I strongly doubt that the uploader created the coat of arms. Aren't coats of arms under the control of their respective governments? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Despite I'm sure, that the uploader was the creator of the flag, I recommend deletion, as this is home-made COA, neither official, nor used. --George M. (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Пока ещё это не герб, это проект герба, который будет официально зарегистрирован в скором будущем. Это две разные вещи: герб - это официально зарегистрированный, а проект герба нет. Автором данного проекта герба являюсь я. Леван Цителашвили. 7:30 23.10.2010.
Deleted. - to be registered as official in the near future - Jcb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown author, no reason for PD-old given. Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence this is in the public domain. —innotata 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. --Polarlys 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)"
(from file's page) - as always - I agree. DR is more approriate here. -- Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Postcard in own possession isnt a source. At least the postcard publisher is likely known and must be written as a source information. The second step would be do to reasonable investigation based on the publisher information. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Often publisher/photographer write information on the image side of the card, here only the subject's name is given. Uploader had this card, and says photographer is unknown. That is good enough for me that photographer's name is not on the card, but nothing will ever be good enough for Martin H. or for Saibo. Speedy Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Often publisher/photographer write information on the image side of the card, here only the subject's name is given. Uploader had this card, and says photographer is unknown. That is good enough for me that photographer's name is not on the card, but nothing will ever be good enough for Martin H. or for Saibo. Speedy
- Please do not forget me, Pieter. When uploading a postcard, at least the studio/publisher should be mentioned, otherwise it is no Reasonable evidence has been presented that the author's name (…) Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, sorry, but that's the way it is. The license's requirements are nearly never (for nearly no DR here) satisfied - yes. (I clarified above that the anon-license was disputed by Polarlys first: only the new DR was created by me) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, you guys want longer than 150 years copyright protection for anonymous works. But the law says 70. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes 70 years, as written in law and in our template. But: for anonymous works only! Just because we do not know the author right now at no effort a work is not anon. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
what is the date of death of the author? Needed to proof validity of PD-old claim here. Saibo (Δ) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment J. Schröck was active already in 1888, see here. This photo was published in a 1934 book, but is probably older, as the subject was born 1862, and became bishop 1917. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps http://www.foto-schroeck.de/ "seit 150 Jahren" could help??? --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. We need to have the date of death of J. Schröck. And: the website you gave is from someone who is in D-83410 Laufen. That's not even near "Speyer" (as I read in picture). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps http://www.foto-schroeck.de/ "seit 150 Jahren" could help??? --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
work by another person depicted. Uploader did only the scan. → License and author wrong. Who is the real photographer and when did he die? Saibo (Δ) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - This is the cover of a published book. (see here). -Seidenstud (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If the photo is free, there is nothing copyrightable in the cover. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure - I asked for nothing else than the photographer. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Paintings by Edmond Dyonnet
[edit]- A forest meadow.JPG
- Alice Lorin1.jpg
- Dr Rodolphe Boulet par Edmond Dyonnet 1901.jpg
- Dyonnet jeune fille à la fleur.JPG
- Gustave Lorin.jpg
- Paysage de Dyonnet.jpg
- Portrait de Charles Gill par Edmond Dyonnet 1901.jpg
For most of the uploads, Fabrice Lorin (talk, contribs) claims to be the author and/or copyright holder of the paintings, which is obviously false. For Paysage de Dyonnet.jpg, they claim that the author died more than 70 years ago, which is also not true, as Dyonnet died in 1954.
I posed a question on Commons talk:Licensing as to whether the paintings might be {{PD-Art|PD-Canada-creator}} or {{PD-Art|PD-Canada}}, but in the three weeks that the question was there, nobody was able to confirm that they were. Assuming that these are Dyonnet's works and assuming that Canadian copyright law applies, these works can only be in the public domain if they were published while Dyonnet was still alive [more than 50 years ago; see below], according to the Canadian Public Domain Flowchart linked from Commons:Licensing#Canada. Note that paintings are typically considered published only when tangible reproductions are made available to the public at large; see en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I find the wording of the first paragraph of this deletion request rather misleading and harsh given the context. We are not dealing with some uploader who would be deliberately or thoughtlessly posting copyvios. What we have here is clearly an uploader who has been uploading in good faith images of paintings by an artist who was probably a family member. Considering only the user name, my guess, for what it's worth, would be that the uploader is probably the grandson of the artist's nephew, or something like that. (The artist had no children and considered his nephew and his nieces practically as his children and it is not unlikely that they, and/or their own children and grandchildren, inherited his rights.) If we need to know exactly the family relationship, we can just ask him. So, firstly, even if, like you accuse him, he had implied that he was the copyright holder of the paintings, you should be careful, because, well, for all we know, he might well be, or at the very least he almost certainly has, or can easily get, the clearance, in the event that the paintings would not already be in the public domain. Secondly, anyway, your accusations are false. The uploader never claimed to be the author of the paintings. He clearly and correctly credited the paintings to the artist. And I do not see that he ever claimed to be the copyright holder. Where he mentioned "own work" or used the PD-self template, it almost certainly refers to his own photographs of the paintings. At most, you could accuse him of being only a very occasional contributor and of not being familiar with the subtlety about perpendicular photographs of two-dimensional works that, by exception, are not considered to generate a distinct copyright for the photographer. And of not perfectly mastering all the PD templates, by mistakenly assuming that the PD-old template could be used as a generic PD template on one image. Now, if the paintings were published in Canada, they entered the public domain there in 2005 (50+1 years p.m.a.). If they were published near the time of their making, (c. 1901-1902) or before 1923, I suppose they can also be in the public domain in the US. The PD-Canada template could be used + whatever incarnation of the various PD-US templates fits best. (If published after 1923, they might fall under US copyright per the URAA. The templates PD-Canada + Not-PD-US-URAA might be used. Or, maybe even better, PD-Canada and a confirmation that the uploader has the rights for publishing free photographs of the paintings in countries where the paintings might still be under copyright.) -- Asclepias (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's misleading to say that the uploader made false claims in relation to these files. For example, A forest meadow.JPG lists "Fabrice Lorin" in the Author field – which is false. I have not mentioned intent or thoughtlessness. The latter might apply, the former doesn't, and it neither affects whether or not we should keep the files. The deletion request is not an accusation of the uploader, but an attempt to determine the copyright status of the files in question.
- Family ties and inheritance status are a possibility, and I'll admit I had not considered that. If that's the case, it should be documented and confirmed through OTRS. Unfortunately, the uploader has not been active since December 2009 and did not comment on the Commons talk:Licensing discussion. We can't just wishfully assume that someone who created an account here is a sole heir.
- Similarly, before making claims that the works are in the public domain, we would need to confirm that the works were indeed published in Canada and that publication took place more than 50 years ago (not necessarily while Dyonnet was alive, as I originally stated). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader did not make "false claims", much less "obviously false" ones. It is absurd to pretend to ignore the fact that he clearly and correctly attributed the paintings to the painter and that his mentions of the photographer refer to the photos. And, in general, such information would be perfectly adequate, if it weren't for our exception about perpendicular reproductions of 2-D works. Where necessary, we can help with the wording of the description pages and eventually use the types of PD templates best suited to each situation. We cannot seriously expect all new contributors to know Wikimedia's interpretation of the Corel jurisprudence's interpretation of the US law relatively to reproductions of 2-D works, and to guess what consequences it might have on the preferred style for filling the information in the description pages. If more information is needed about when the paintings were published, I suggest asking the uploader, who is probably better placed than us. Although he does not seem to visit on Commons frequently, he had occasional contributions in 2010 to the fr.wikipedia (last contribution October 4, 2010). -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Similarly, before making claims that the works are in the public domain, we would need to confirm that the works were indeed published in Canada and that publication took place more than 50 years ago (not necessarily while Dyonnet was alive, as I originally stated). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Canada; and don't make such accusations of falsity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again: before making claims that the works are in the public domain, we would need to confirm that the works were indeed published in Canada and that publication took place more than 50 years ago. And again: the deletion request is not an accusation of the uploader, but an attempt to determine the copyright status of the files in question. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where else would these paintings have been made public? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Paintings are typically considered published only when tangible reproductions are made available to the public at large, so if the originals were only displayed in museums without being reproduced or remained in private collections until the 1960s, or if the first reproductions were produced for foreign markets and published there, the works would not be in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Any reference for that statement? Exhibition should be enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- See en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication. Exhibition is explicitly excluded from the definition of publication in the Berne Convention. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Berne convention is not law. Anyway, Dyonnet died 1954, and copyright expires 50 years after the author's death according to Canadian law. The law covers both published and unpublished works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Canada is a signatory to the Berne convention, its copyright law refers heavily to it, and the Canadian law contains no other definitions for publication. The 50 years p.m.a. rule is a recent introduction and does not apply retroactively. See the Canadian Public Domain Flowchart. The first four answers are all "no," which makes publication relevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it is not in the law, then there is case law. Exhibiting a work in an art museum where anybody is free to make drawings or photographs would be regarded as publication in at least some countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Je suis très surpris des accusations du citoyen Asclépias, les œuvres de Dyonnet sont en ma possession, je les ai photographiées, et il s'autorise à affirmer que je suis un falsificateur! Alors que je souhaite mettre en ligne et diffuser les peintures de ce peintre canadien. fabrice Lorin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.35.20 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The accusations by LX of "bogus claims" and "obviously false" are without ground. Uploader inherited the paintings, and has them at his home. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have a copy of A Brief History of Time at home, but that doesn't mean I am the author of that book. Similarly, having physical ownership of a painting does not make one the author of that painting. In the case of these paintings, the actual author is Edmond Dyonnet – not the uploader. I don't understand why you insist on defending claims that the paintings are the uploader's own works and that the uploader is the author. These claims are factually incorrect, and the assertion that they are is not without ground. If the uploader can confirm that they are the sole heir and copyright holder or if someone can confirm that they are in the public domain, we can correct the current issues and keep the files, but we cannot keep them on the false premise that the uploader is the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are extremely rude. Uploader never made a false claim. He made the photos, and in that sense the source is own work. He can also claim to be the copyright owner (if it still exists). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have a copy of A Brief History of Time at home, but that doesn't mean I am the author of that book. Similarly, having physical ownership of a painting does not make one the author of that painting. In the case of these paintings, the actual author is Edmond Dyonnet – not the uploader. I don't understand why you insist on defending claims that the paintings are the uploader's own works and that the uploader is the author. These claims are factually incorrect, and the assertion that they are is not without ground. If the uploader can confirm that they are the sole heir and copyright holder or if someone can confirm that they are in the public domain, we can correct the current issues and keep the files, but we cannot keep them on the false premise that the uploader is the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ma grande tante Gabrielle Lorin a été l'héritière exclusive du peintre Edmond Dyonnet (frère de sa mère), qui l'a élevée. je vous conseille la lecture de la bibliographie pour vous en assurer. Gabrielle Lorin est décédée en 1985, elle a fait don d'une partie de la succession aux archives de l'université d'Ottawa, le reste à ma famille en France. Elle n'a pas eu de descendance directe, pas d'enfant; il n'y a pas de droits familiaux sur la propriété intellectuelle de l'œuvre. Il n'y a plus de copyright sur l'œuvre de Dyonnet ou sa reproduction. Je suis la seule descendance de cette branche familiale. Mais vos échanges m'étonnent sur le fond. En rédigeant cet article pour Wikipedia, mon souhait était de rendre d'accès publique et gratuit, la biographie d'un homme qui a contribué à l'histoire de la peinture canadienne. L'essentiel est là! Vous oubliez le fond pour n'aborder que la forme en alignant des imprécations procédurales. Ensuite les directives de commons sont toutes en anglais et l'amateur que je suis ne comprend pas toutes les questions ou sous-entendus d'une législation nord-américaine sur le droit d'auteur. Bien à vous Fabrice Lorin (talk, contribs)le 2 novembre 2010
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A "no evidence of permission" tag was added by an anonymous editor, but a deletion discussion seems more appropriate. The message added was "Since this image is the one used on Prof Geim's webspace it should be confirmed that the uploader is the creator. Especially since there are uncropped versions available at e.g. [11]." This looks like a possible copyvio to me too. -- Quibik (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
![[11]](http://www.koerber-stiftung.de/uploads/pics/Andre-Geim_01.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment - uploader needs to get in touch with COM:OTRS, or upload the uncropped version in the original resolution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image credit on http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/geim.html is "Photo: Sergeom, Wikimedia Commons." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I flipped through the majority of relevant articles and news on the net using this image that I could find. The uploader's comment "my own work. it can be found on some webpages but I never requested a credit and do not now." sounds plausible, since most of the articles/news did not give any credit for the image. A few did, however, credit either the AP, dpa, University of Manchester, or simply a "handout". The AP does not have this particular image in their database. Through dpa, on the other hand, I found these two: [12] and [13]. So from all this I would conclude that the majority of the images used on the net originate either from the handouts by Körber Foundation or the University of Manchester (or Wikipedia). Seeing that most of these images were provided for free(?) by the institutions, I'd find the possibility of the uploader being the actual author quite believable. Still, the Commons' image description added by the uploader conflicts with the image caption by EPA: the photographing location is said to be "Manchester" in Commons, but "Hamburg, Germany" in EPA.
- From all this, I'm leaning more towards Delete (which I'd hate to see happen), as the licensing information is rather unclear. Perhaps an OTRS ticket is filed... —Quibik (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, the German photos are here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but what does this change? Not using that specific image does not mean much. (Besides, they seem to be much more recent, which might also be the reason why this image is not used.) —Quibik (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, the German photos are here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frana Valegion.jpg
Violazione della privacy delle persone. Ho ricevuto delle lamentele. --Gattoarturo (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Io ho creato l'immagine, e la ritengo da cancellare. --Gattoarturo (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral; I won't object to deletion if that's what you really want, but would simply blurring the faces of the people be enough? I can do that easily if you want. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep A good photo of the church; visible people are small subsidiary figures, and hard to identify faces even on the full sized version. I don't perceive a privacy violation. However I have no objection to blurring the faces if that will take care of anyone's concern. Infrogmation (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the official flag of Domselaar. This town has not chosen its official flag yet. Domselaar123 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
translations of Aniela Zagórska
[edit]- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 011.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 012.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 013.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 014.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 015.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 016.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 017.jpeg
- File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 018.jpeg
The preface of the book included in the pages mentioned above was translated by a person who died in 1943. The rest of the book is PD-old. Pages added accidentally by myself - no need to notify the author --Ankry (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Undeleted on January 1, 2014 due to the Public Domain Day. odder (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Labiv
[edit]
Three doodles of low usefulness. The first two were categorized as Comets by the author. My advise is also to check the remaining files loaded by Labiv. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No proof that the copyright has expired: "life of the author plus 70 years" is only possible if the author is really dead for 70 years but the proof for this is missing 80.187.103.73 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The photo is taken by Hugo Vogel here --Bauernfreund (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Where is this Photo taken from, where was it published? The uploader simply claims, that Hugo Vogel was author of the photo, but where can I proof this claim ??? "Hugo Vogel 1914" is no valid source! So where did the uploader find it? Scanned from a book? Which one? Found in the net? On which website? This way the uploader can claim everything, I want to see a valid source which I an everyone else can check. --77.20.92.48 22:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I opened this discussion again, since there is no source provided and there was just voting involved (Pieter Kuiper, Obelix) and the IP's questions remain unanswered. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No source provided (website of archive, book, magazine, …), Hugo Vogel was no photographer and was not at the front in 1914. Delete --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Vogel wrote about Hindenburg: Als ich Hindenburg malte, a 1927 book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. But who took the photo? --Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, the photographer was not named. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you know this from? Where do you even know from, that the image was taken from this book? --Polarlys (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it is a book "[mitt] viele s/w-Abbildungen von Originaldokumenten, Skizzen u. Bildern." Plausible source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe - but thats speculation, I dont know the book - the photo is from the book because Vogel maybe used it as reference work for his later painting of the Tannenberg Battle. Vogel portraited Hindenburg that time, but he not attended that August 1914 battle, so he cant be the photographer. He only visited the front later in January-May 1915 and September-October 1915. The photogtraph in question was distributed by Scherl and was published in various newspapers of that time. That regretably does not say us if the author is known or unknown but it may help to comb through old newspaper archives. --Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Do I get this right: I can upload any old photo and just pretend that it was taken by a known painter? Great!!! Now, I can upload as good as any photo I want. Surely, Martin and Pieter will find a suitable book in case someone correctly doubts my pretentions. So does anyone around here really knows where the photo is from? I mean really knows it with page number and title? --77.20.92.48 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- FYI: Martin appreciates encyclopaedic integrity as much as you and I do --Polarlys (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - unfortunately we don't have enough information to know if we may keep it - Jcb (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)