Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Copied from http://www.infraero.gov.br/index.php/br/aeroportos/amazonas/aeroporto-internacional-de-tabatinga.html Ednei amaral (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.infraero.gov.br/index.php/br/aeroportos/santa-catarina/aeroporto-de-navegantes.html Ednei amaral (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.infraero.gov.br/index.php/br/aeroportos/rio-grande-do-sul/aeroporto-internacional-salgado-filho.html Ednei amaral (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.infraero.gov.br/index.php/br/aeroportos/mato-grosso/aeroporto-internacional-marechal-rondon.html Ednei amaral (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism: the image has a caption "homosexuality is widespread in modern army". VasilievVV (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Vandalism: the image has a caption "homosexuality is widespread in modern army". VasilievVV (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate copy of File:Kannur angelo fort kerala india.jpg Sreejith K (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Higher res. File:Kannur angelo fort kerala india.jpg deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded a revised image after rotating it 90 degrees clockwise. This image no longer required Oldsoldier38 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:TheFlitchChair.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
unscharfes Foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (uploader)
Deleted. unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 08:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by George Chernilevsky: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathedrale_nd_chartres_vitraux003.jpg: unscharfes Foto
unscharfes Foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (uploader)
Deleted. unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 08:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by George Chernilevsky: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cathedrale_nd_chartres_vitraux004.jpg
unscharfes Foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by George Chernilevsky: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cathedrale_nd_chartres_vitraux005.jpg
Personal picture with no global use, irrelevant (Article deleted in es.wiki) Savh, Any questions? 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal picture with no global use, irrelevant (Article deleted in es.wiki) Savh, Any questions? 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
некорректное отоброжение текста, не смог разобраться в причине по этому загрузил другую версию в формате jpg. Korler (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. By uploader request. Bad file George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of unidentified subject - unusable, out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unusable George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal picture with no global use, irrelevant (Article deleted in es.wiki) Savh, Any questions? 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
To upload new file Khairil94 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 13 November 2010
unused drawing of band members of a musical band with no notability or article in any wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - as mentioned, out of scope. --Jcornelius (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of musical band with no notability or article in any wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - as mentioned. --Jcornelius (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
derivatve work, author not uploader Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This image is from NBA.com and is unlikely to be free Chrishmt0423 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio - Getty Images photo found here: http://www.daylife.com/photo/010j1Nd0S1aJV --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. It's a speedy to me Herby talk thyme 09:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Empty pic Supertoff (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, copyright violation unless statue is public domain. Albacore (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep - 1976 statue, SIRIS does not say anything a bout a copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope Bestiasonica (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Aboutmovies
[edit]- File:Oregon Pioneer with Sun.JPG
- File:Oregon Pioneer sun.JPG
- File:Oregon Pioneer statue close up.JPG
- File:Oregon State Capitol back.JPG
Freedom of Panorama Violation. This sculpture was created and installed in 1938. --Missvain (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep No mention of copyright here, and no renewal found anyway. So either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Wknight94 talk 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where SIRIS states that there is a copyright on any (but a small amount) of sculptures in their database (and I work daily with SIRIS via WSPA, so I'm rather embarrassed if that's the case)]. Any help would help. Thank you :) Missvain (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- SIRIS tends to mention inscriptions and copyright notices if there are any. It seems highly unlikely that this was copyrighted -> Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- SIRIS tends to mention inscriptions and copyright notices if there are any. It seems highly unlikely that this was copyrighted ->
- I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where SIRIS states that there is a copyright on any (but a small amount) of sculptures in their database (and I work daily with SIRIS via WSPA, so I'm rather embarrassed if that's the case)]. Any help would help. Thank you :) Missvain (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Couple things to note. First, just because something was published after 1923 does not mean it is protected by copyright. First, in 1938 since that is what we are dealing with, the author would have needed to not only register the work, but also place a notice of said copyright on the work (Sec. 9 of the 1909 Act). I doubt you would find a copyright notice on the statute (which may be part of the answer to the SIRIS question above). Now, if we are talking post 1976, and even better post 1989, yes, no longer need to register or provide notice, those acts just get you extra rights. Plus you no longer need to renew, which the author would have needed to do in this instance. Renewal would have been in 1966 (1938+28), a few years after he died, and I would not be surprised if his heir failed to renew. Additionally, the WPA paid for a significant chunk of the new Capitol Building project, and it would not be surprising if Ellerhusen was working for the WPA at the time, which would mean it was a PD as fed gov work. No matter what, it is all speculation unless someone wants to hire a copyright search service to see if it was registered and renewed. In the meantime, as only the copyright holder can assert the copyright and issue a take-down notice, I say keep it, since in this instance the probability that it is still in copyright is low. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- While not completely conclusive, a search of the artist's last name in the Copyright registry volumes scanned by Google comes up empty. As in nothing registered. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep same as above. no delete-franzy please... :) --Heptagon (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Rabia Gupta - Mumbai is the creator of this work, No evidence that owner of this image is Independent Movies and no reference available for its PD release Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non free poster Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non free - Hand made poster Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Election campaign poster, Wall painting...Discuss Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is graffiti in the public space without legal sanction, no "artist" can claim its ownership. It is not an "election campaign poster". --Soman (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately your view goes into precautionary principles and the art is not owned by you, its a deviated work of an art and you cannot make it under a free license ..(Its not a campaign posted but a meeting poster) Kalarickan | My Interactions 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Focused subject is wall poster Kalarickan | My Interactions 06:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non free poster Kalarickan | My Interactions 06:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Non free poster Kalarickan | My Interactions 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No permission from Croatian Football Federation 78.55.12.169 07:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - please show that that federation is the copyright holder, otherwise this claim is irrelevant - Jcb (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I transfered this and many other Flickr-images from en-wiki to get free Flickr-images reviewed. This photo is a COM:DW and since COM:FOP#United_States is only OK for buildings then this may be a copyvio. There is not enough info to verify that it is {{PD-US-no notice}} or any of the other US reasons to be free. MGA73 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please tell us something about the statue: how old is it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a picture of Joseph M. Pietri but a picture of his brother, Pierre M. Pietri Jospe (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - you may request renaming - Jcb (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Same reason as here. Duplicate with File:Touchatout - Le Trombinoscope, Num. 61 (portrait).jpg. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
OK with this deletion request. I'm the uploader. This file is replaced with a better picture. Jospe (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: managed as duplicate. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Misleading. Significant technical error, that the creator was notified of even before upload. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The full series, which stand or fall together:
- File:Manual transmission Neutral.PNG
- File:Manual transmission First gear.PNG
- File:Manual transmission Second gear.PNG
- File:Manual transmission Third gear.PNG
- File:Manual transmission Fourth gear.PNG
- File:Manual transmission Reverse gear.PNG
There was discussion of this yesterday, in relation to an over-written image.
This editor, KVDP (talk · contribs), has a long track-record of creating misleading technical images. This series is another.
They seem to begin with another set of images, by another editor, already in use on WP. Although these are generally good diagrammatic images, KVDP decided to "fix" them. The only issue is that these images have, quite reasonably, omitted the modern synchromesh in favour of drawing the older "crash" gearbox. A perfectly reasonable simplification for explaining the shift mechanism.
KVDP's new images have two obvious changes: they add the synchromesh unit (which is hard to see at this size anyway) and also they switch from a 3D render to a side-on view with Google Sketchup. For drawing gears, 3D rendering with good shading is quite useful, and not something that it's helpful to lose. I do (although I recognise this as an irrelevance for policy) consider these new images to be less clear and even quite ugly to look at.
As to technical issues, then here goes:
- The images are cropped at the sides. At least show us the whole image!
- The top gear of a manual gearbox is (significantly) a "straight through" gear, without using any of the gears. KVDP's failure to appreciate this meant that he's drawn it as yet another gear. Quite a misleading issue.
- The engine is at one end, the driver (and gear stick) at another. Yet KVDP has reversed this, so that the gear stick is over the (unlabelled) input shaft from the engine. To a reader who doesn't appreciate this, but who does know that their gear stick is (almost always, except for a few mid-engined cars) at the non-engine end, it now appears that the engine is at the right-hand side, and thus all the gear ratios are the wrong way round. That's "not an error" and "there might be a gearbox that's arranged this way" (when we get into the same old tendentious arguments with this editor), but it's still unhelpful and misleading for an encyclopedia to show the aberrant case, rather than the commonplace case. (This issue seems to have crept in with a Sketchup file that was sourced from Appropedia. Appropedia and their Legions of the Clueless are NOT a suitable source for any technical topic whatsoever! Uncyclopedia is generally more accurate.) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and the added synchromesh (the only justification for creating these images) is wrong too. The synchroniser cone is drawn, but not the dog clutch behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I agree that some design elements are'nt exactly common (ie straight trough gear, engine/gear stick placement, ... ) This was done for a similar reason as Armlamp's decision to use a crash gearbox, it's simpler to understand and easier to show on a picture. As for being warned "even before upload", that's not entirely so; yes you made me understand that some things were oversimplified (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KVDP#Do_not_overwrite_existing_files ), but you never said that if I upload it under a new name, it would immediatelly be tagged by you to delete it. Instead, Pieter Kuipers said: upload it under a new name, and you said there were some oversimplications and closed the text off saying "and atleast upload it under a new name".
- Secondly, there still isn't an easy to understand picture at wikipedia/wikimedia commons of a synchromesh (ie in 3D, similar to the picture of the differential). My 3D model linked from the pictures here makes one understand the system very quickly, although it is a bit oversimplified. That's also the reason why I made the snaphot although all the parts aren't that clear. The only thing to do is to download the 3D model using sketchup, and you can inspect every nutch and cranny of the system. Also, in comparison to other 3D models at Google warehouse, it's extremely accurate (if you don't believe me, see http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=transmission&styp=m&btnG=Zoeken )
- Offcourse you can argue that it doesn't matter that it's a very good model for google warehouse standards, it must be up to wikipedia standards. Thus, you can delete it for this reason. However, I still think that you'll be losing a valuable image if you do so, and ignore an opportunity to insert more information by linking the articles up with the only free 3D model collection, Google warehouse.
KVDP (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Armlamp's simplification to a crash gearbox makes things simpler and clearer. Your "simplifications" just make them wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The files has been uploaded without any permissions of the author. IMrPotter (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no evidence that the uploader isn't the author. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am Oliver M. and I don't know how to prove that I am the author of the picture. --IMrPotter (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
foute alegrie 85.69.89.64 11:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the deletion notice. See diff. Please register a username. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Probable flickr-washing. The photo "was taken on November 11, 2010" and uploaded to Commons on the same day. deerstop. 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Basque Wikipedia article about him says he died in 1982.--Chaser (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader is flickr washing with at least four flickr accounts, etengabe, etete17, etete18 and etete20. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If the author is unknown a permission can not come. The copyright holder is the author in the first place, any copyright transfer requires the written form, so if a copyright transfer toke place and the author is not longer the owner of copyrights the author must still be known from the transfer. The "OTRS-pending" placed here is lame. Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced image with no educational/archive value. (Oh, and it's a very common economic diagram, so claiming that it need to stay for attribution of the derivative work seems feeble IMHO, but I guess you could have different priorities to me.) Jarry1250 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- While now we have File:Ad-ad-as.svg there is really no use for this one. --eugrus (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
User has uploaded many copyvios so I dobt this licence Avron (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright © Thiago Pereira Machado, all rights reserved. http://www.airliners.net/photo//0662875/&sid=b1029f8c1b0fea01ba348fdc67e0e9e0 -- Common Good (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.infraero.gov.br/index.php/br/aeroportos/tocantins/aeroporto-de-palmas.html Ednei amaral (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Poster is by Werner Graul (see http://www.michaelorgan.org.au/Metroja.htm), who died after 1984. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fritz Lang's Metropolis, movie poster, 1926.jpg. Rosenzweig δ 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Author (Tadeusz Rybczynski (1923–1998)) died in 1998, so this particular expression of the concept is still copyright. Jarry1250 (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor is living, this is a 1991 work, so notice and renewal are not required. Without a license this is an infringement. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete While not required, it has a copyright notice anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that too I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted including File:Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture36.jpg per Carl Lindberg. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
copyright infringement of photo of jeremy shum taken by jeremy shum 130.220.71.19 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
derivative work, painter died in 1957 thus it is still copyrighted Denniss (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of a Polish company with no notability as decided here pl:Bira Trade - advertising, out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Uploader placed a noncommercial restriction, violates Commons licensing policy. Denniss (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll remove that restriction as soon as I found out how to do that Battlefox1986 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2010 (CET)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
and File:Oslo jun 2010 218.jpg. No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Norway for sculptures. Who is sculptor? EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Undeleted after expiration of copyright term for Gustav Vigeland. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
It is unknown to me if FoP in Australia applies to paintings. Could someone please clarify if paintings are allowed under FOP? Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Australia Maybe also the template for Australia should be clarified. Saibo (Δ) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Section 65 specifically states: "This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." That means sculptures, which are defined in 10(a), and works of artistic craftsmanship, 10(c). Paintings are in 10(a), but are not included in Section 65. Section 68 is a separate section under Division 7, and is not part of Section 65; rather it is subset to Section 65, which does not cover 2D works of art. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Jappalang's research is convincing; furthermore Australia tends to follow the UK rule, for which it's well-known that FOP does not apply to 2D artifacts like signs and paintings (excepting works of artistic craftsmanship, which these are not). Dcoetzee (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Info “No, I don't think paintings or murals are OK. They pretty much keep to the UK interpretation, I think. Carl Lindberg 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)” from FOP talk. --Saibo (Δ) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep, because this request doesn't state why the picture is useless. Archyx (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sieben oder acht Mal wurde ein Foto mit dem gleichen "small penis" hochgeladen!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not sure what nom. said second, but I agree this is pretty pointless. Surely we have plenty of better dick pictures. This is just another guy flashing us ---- he just has less reason to do so.... Wknight94 talk 01:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.153.119 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Ага, "дура"... Keep. See this for a discussion about 84.61.153.119 who has been blocked recently for trolling on en: and de:. --Amga (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep I am so tired of seeing this FoP deletion bullshit, use some common sense people. 72.208.97.129 01:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Apart from the potential FOP problem, the photo itself might simply be a copyvio. It has been taken from gallery.vashdom.ru, as per the uploaders statement. Though I don't read russian, I see the "Copyright © 1999-2010" statement on that website. Does the russian text say anything of a free license? --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission, deleted on grounds unrelated to FOP. Trycatch (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:PNTdesigner
[edit]
All files are unused logos and promotional material of a Portuguese clothes brand with no notability or article in pt or any other wiki project - advertising, out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - as mentioned, it's promotonial content without encyclopedic good --Jcornelius (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
According the source www.tracks-n-troops.com/hat_figures.htm there is no evidence that this is pd-old Avron (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
unused, bad quality photo of unidentified dog breed - no foreseable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Uploader has uploaded several images made by other people but with slight edits. This looks like a Mauricio Antón image. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This file has an OTRS ticket that I do not have access to, but see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Cloaca_Maxima_2.jpg. I am concerned that the OTRS may not be valid, as higher-resolution versions are on other places on the net, without links to Pandolfo. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Pandolfo may not be the author considering there are higher resolutions around the net. Pandolfo released permission for what's hosted on the website, but did not assert to be the author. I think it's best to delete or find out where the image actually comes from, perhaps from a book like Pieter said. ZooFari 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The legitimity of the image has been approved by OTRS. If we keep denying the rights of OTRS we will never stop with this type of disputes. Besides, I consider that Pieter Kuiper is getting very personal with his attacks on my contributions to wiki commons, and I strongly wish he would have a more decent attitude andrefrain from these attacks. Mr. Pieter Kuiper's proposal to delete has nothing to do with the image as such. It is simply a continuation of previous personal attacks and this has to stop. Afil (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The permission was provided by Pandolfo. Whether or not he had the authority to grant said permission is not in the purview of OTRS. If it is determined he does not hold the copyright to the photograph, then the permission must be gained from the copyright holder. @Afil, please don't consider Pieter's attacks particular to you. He does this to everyone he has a grudge against (which is a huge number of people). Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bastique displays a cavalier attitude to issuing OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter displays a lack of comprehension on what OTRS is. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this is what it means that "permission for use of this work has been verified ", an OTRS ticket is not worth much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep demonstrating your ignorance, Pieter. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this is what it means that "permission for use of this work has been verified ", an OTRS ticket is not worth much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter displays a lack of comprehension on what OTRS is. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bastique displays a cavalier attitude to issuing OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The trouble with the deletion request is that is does not investigate the question. The picture is reproduced in various other sites, besides the one indicated as source. Thus it appears also in the Netherlands on [1] without any claim to copyright.
- Besides it is also posted on [2], which specifically claims that the contents posted on the site are declared "free of copyright".
- "Inserendo contenuti in questo sito ogni utente dichiara che sono privi di copyright e si ritiene responsabile se il loro contenuto risulta offensivo o lesivo di terzi. Inviando contenuti di qualsiasi genere (testi, fotografie ecc...) l'utente autorizza Sotterranei di ROma ad utilizzare i suddetti nei modi che ritiene più opportuni senza alcun limite o vincolo. Sotterranei di Roma si riserva la possibilità di eliminare dal proprio archivio on line tutti i contenuti ritenuti non in linea con le finalità perseguite. Sotterranei di Roma non è responsabile in nessun caso per i contenuti inviati dai suoi utenti."Afil (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since neither of those sites provide a source for the image, their general policy cannot legitimately be used on Commons as a rationale for hosting the image as public domain. It's very likely that neither of those sites has the rights to give the image away. It's also possible that the image is freely licensed or public domain, but not knowing the original source of the image or who took the picture, it's impossible to say that for certain. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Inserendo contenuti in questo sito ogni utente dichiara che sono privi di copyright e si ritiene responsabile se il loro contenuto risulta offensivo o lesivo di terzi. Inviando contenuti di qualsiasi genere (testi, fotografie ecc...) l'utente autorizza Sotterranei di ROma ad utilizzare i suddetti nei modi che ritiene più opportuni senza alcun limite o vincolo. Sotterranei di Roma si riserva la possibilità di eliminare dal proprio archivio on line tutti i contenuti ritenuti non in linea con le finalità perseguite. Sotterranei di Roma non è responsabile in nessun caso per i contenuti inviati dai suoi utenti."Afil (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In the correspondence attached to this OTRS ticket, Claudio Ezequiel Pandolfo gives permission to use his text and the images. However, he does not explicitly claim to be the photographer and there is also no discussion about free licenses and their implications. In particular, the {{Cc-by-2.5}} license on the photograph's description page is nowhere mentioned. It is, however, quite an old ticket (November 2006) from the very early phase of OTRS cases at Commons. Afil, could you contact Claudio Ezequiel Pandolfo again and ask him for clarification and a confirmation of the given license? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have sent Mr. Pandolfo the following e-mail.
Dear Mr. Pandolfo,
Quite some time ago, you had the kindness to authorize me to use one of your pictures of the Cloaca Maxima in an article for the free on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The picture has been uploaded and, at present, illustrates the article.
However, a recent review has shown that the existing authorization does not specify that you are the copyright owner and the type of authorization. Therefore, I would kindly request you to help in this matter and to send a new authorization according the the following form.
I apologize for the inconvenience and hope that you will agree to send me the revised authorization as soon as possible.
Thank you, in advance.
Regards
Andrei Filotti
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of picture of the Cloaca Maxima [Cloaca Maxima.jpg]
I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
I hope this suggestion works. I do not know Mr. Pandolfo personally and don't have the slightest idea if he still has the e-mail indicated in his article. Afil (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The OTRS ticket is really weak to our current standards (but it was from 2006 so it is unreasonable to blame our OTRS agent). The only relevant sentence from Pandolfo is Of course, you have my permission to use the images and texts also. Anything more you need, please dont dude to ask me. (no claim of authorship, no selection of free license). I hope the efforts to find the copyright holder suceed but until then we must delete the file. I'll remove the OTRS tag now. Nillerdk (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What is extremely worrying in Nillerdk's comments is that the rules of the game keep changing continuously. There are some rules valid in 2006. Wikipedians try in good faith to obide to these rules. After some time, somebody changes the rules and applies them retroactively. That is totally incorrect. After six months, maybe you come up with new rules and again apply them retroactively.
In most countries, legislation should not be applied retroactively. Except for major crimes - and this is not the case here - action cannot be taken against a citizen for not having complied to a legal provision which did not exist when the incriminated activity took place.
Therefore I consider that Nillerdk's action is totally abusive. If the ticket is too weak for the current standards, but not to the ones which were applied when image was uploaded and the permission was requested and granted the file should be kept, not deleted. Otherwise, the entire process of OTRS defies elementary principles of legality and justice for applying rules retroactively. Afil (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this is not in Rome; it looks a bit like File:Römischer Abwasserkanal, Köln.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If someone else claims to have copyright to the image, they can blame that Pandolfo guy... ...Kenrick95 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have tried to get more information. However Pandolfo has not responded and the email address from which I got the original authorization is not active any more. There is not anything else I can do.
- The only problem I have is with the retroactivity of rules. The image was originally loaded and the authorization I was able to secure was considered acceptable. At some later date we set new rules. These should not be applied to images which had previously been accepted. There are many reasons why a person who gave the original authorization is not available any more. Maybe the person is not alive any more. Anyway I cannot get a stronger authorization. Afil (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, what was valid then, is still valid now. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: to clarify, the permission was valid when received, and should remain valid, as "we cannot keep changing the rules". Kameraad Pjotr 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've got a surprise for you: OTRS people are not holy. They also make mistakes. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Renominating, because the OTRS permission was never valid, Bastique's statement of "permission was verified" was not based on anything solid, and the evidence indicates that it is just not true. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - ticket just contains someones permission to use the image in a specific article - Jcb (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as above. ZooFari 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this briefcase is the nuclear football. Original research at best, hoax at worst TreasuryTag (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The grandson of the creator claims copyrights still exist. 80.179.112.106 21:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - please provide some evidence, this is too vague - Jcb (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Deror avi had a long dispute with this grandson about these photos. Maybe he can explain better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.112.106 (talk • contribs) 27. Dezember 2010, 11:26 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
Dear all,
The photo was taken in 1933 by my Grandfather, the late Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz, in what was then the British Mandate for Palestine. It was scanned and uploaded to the internet about a year ago by Israel's National Library, under the permission of the copyright holders.
The photo is protected under US copyright laws (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf, page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date"), and therefore should be deleted from the Commons project. The reasons for that are as follows:
- The photo was not published anywhere until 2010, when it was uploaded to Israel National Library site.
- My grandfather - the creator of the photo - passed away in 1992.
- The copyright on the photo was transferred to the photographer's sons, i.e. it still belongs to the photographer's family.
- The photo was downloaded from Israel National Library site and cropped to hide a copyright statement that was added to the photo as a watermark. This was done against the explicit will of the copyright holders. Since it was downloaded by the Israeli Wikipedia user, the watermark on the original image was changed and moved to the center of the image in order to prevent similar acts.
- The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library. This is also indicated next to every image in the Library's site.
--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, with all due respect, but doesn't what's written in the license template on the image page "A photograph taken on 24 May 2008 or earlier — the old British Mandate act applies, i.e. on 1 January of the 51st year after the creation of the photograph (paragraph 78(i) of the 2007 statute, and paragraph 21 of the old British Mandate act)." apply here? --Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All Wikimedia Commons file uploads must at least comply with the US copyright laws. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is wrong - the applicable material law (even in a US court) would be the Israeli Law - which clearly states that the image is free. Furthermore, Or Aleksandrowicz is not the sole hair - and has not proven he is the heir to the copyrights (which dont' exist in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you figure that? If truly not published until 2010, the URAA would not apply (which is the only case I can think of which would take into account Israeli law, other than determining who the first rightsholder would be), but rather it simply gets a 70 pma term in the United States. It never became public domain in the United States, so it would not have needed restoration. It sounds like they are PD in Israel (I'm not sure why a scan would get an additional copyright as claimed; an agreement with the Library would not mean anything unless Israeli law allows copyright on scans of PD material, which would surprise me), but the photo won't be PD in the U.S. until 2063. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- the fact is - an image can be free at one country while according to US Law it would not have been free. For example - the Burn convsion states in article 9 (2): "2.It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author." Once on countey legislates so, it applies to picture taken by its domicile or in its domicile, therefore, for example - if an architect builds a building in Jerusalem - it may be photographed freely there (according to Israeli Law), and all images are free (provied the photographer allowed it). A building by the same architect in venice would not be free (For exmample: images of this bridge in Jerusalem is free, work by the same architect such as the bridge in vanice is not). So the issue in question is the Law at the country of origin (See here for example), and the reason is that the convenient forum to hear the claim will always be the country of origin (based on the expectation of the parties to legal defence). The relevent Wikimedia Commons policy is this one - the work was not published nor registered in the US prior to 1978 and therefore also free in the US. Deror avi (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you figure that? If truly not published until 2010, the URAA would not apply (which is the only case I can think of which would take into account Israeli law, other than determining who the first rightsholder would be), but rather it simply gets a 70 pma term in the United States. It never became public domain in the United States, so it would not have needed restoration. It sounds like they are PD in Israel (I'm not sure why a scan would get an additional copyright as claimed; an agreement with the Library would not mean anything unless Israeli law allows copyright on scans of PD material, which would surprise me), but the photo won't be PD in the U.S. until 2063. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is wrong - the applicable material law (even in a US court) would be the Israeli Law - which clearly states that the image is free. Furthermore, Or Aleksandrowicz is not the sole hair - and has not proven he is the heir to the copyrights (which dont' exist in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All Wikimedia Commons file uploads must at least comply with the US copyright laws. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are pretty simple, no need to write so much. The photo was taken in 1933, was not known to anyone (except the creator) until 2003, not published until 2010. The creator died in 1992. As mentioned before, according to this official US Copyright Office document (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf), page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date: These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life plus 70 or 95/120 year terms apply to them as well." Copyright is automatic, not a single word about a need to register the copyright in order to secure it. If US laws are different, please provide some real evidence. A Wikimedia template is far from being a formal legal document (BTW, don't fully understand the meaning of "copyright notice" in the template that was referred to. If it means only a clear indication to the identity of the copyright holder, there was a clear copyright watermark on the original file that was manipulated by the Israeli Wikipedia user, but it was intentionally cropped by him before uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons servers).--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- One comment. In Israel Or has not grounds for his legal arguments. He was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats. Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments. As to his legal arguments - it is wrong. The images were indead "published" in the early 30's. According to Israeli Law (as well as UK law) "publication" happens when one person other than the photographer sees the picture. Deror avi (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mr. Deror Avi has a long and documented dispute with me about my grandfather's photos (in the Israeli Wikipedia), containing lots of distorted "quotes" of my own claims that are misleading at best, if not plainly untruthful. So let's stick to facts: I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia (I guess this can be verified); I have never threatened anyone (inside or outside Wikipedia); My brother, Gadi Aleksandrowicz, never stated that I have no ground in the above argument; the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed. The Story is simple: my grandfather took about 15000 photos during the 1930's. He printed some hundreds of them (not including this one). Most of them (including the photo under question here) remained unknown to anyone until I found a small bag with all the negatives in my grandmother's apartment in 2003. Again, these were negatives, not prints (the scans in the National Library were done from the negatives, BTW). No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel (again one of Deror Avi's distorted quotes), but, since they are under copyright in the US (as far as I understand), the should not be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons project. That's the whole story. So please delete this photo from the project. Anyone can still enjoy it on Israel National Library internet site. And Deror - you made your point clear. No slandering is needed. Step down and let others - who may know the American Law better than you - judge.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions (see for example here and here - a demand the WF would provide a Legal Opinion). As to hisd arguments - let me present inconsistancies in his versions above he he states that:
- "the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed"
- "The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library"
- "No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel "
- lets examine there claims:
- In Hebrew wikipedia Or stated that:
- 1. The photographs were all published in the 1930th in the US or in Poland.
- 2. The family (and not him) still has copyright
- 3. The Polish law applies
- (see here and here. Or even claims he has a legal opinion saying this see here.
- Lets examine there claims as well:
- 1. If indeed the images were published in the US in the 30th and not registered - they are free now in the US.
- 2. No "agreement" can create copyright according to the Israeli Law where those do not exist according to the Law.
- 3. Or's version are somewhat inconsistant (in other words - he is not truthful).
- To sum up - it is undisputed the images are PD in Israel, and has been so for more than 30 years. It is also free under US Law, and according to the Polish Law (see here. If Or believes otherwise, he should bring evidence to the contrary (for example - produce the legal opinion stating that the Polish Law applies.). Deror avi (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions (see for example here and here - a demand the WF would provide a Legal Opinion). As to hisd arguments - let me present inconsistancies in his versions above he he states that:
- Mr. Deror Avi has a long and documented dispute with me about my grandfather's photos (in the Israeli Wikipedia), containing lots of distorted "quotes" of my own claims that are misleading at best, if not plainly untruthful. So let's stick to facts: I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia (I guess this can be verified); I have never threatened anyone (inside or outside Wikipedia); My brother, Gadi Aleksandrowicz, never stated that I have no ground in the above argument; the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed. The Story is simple: my grandfather took about 15000 photos during the 1930's. He printed some hundreds of them (not including this one). Most of them (including the photo under question here) remained unknown to anyone until I found a small bag with all the negatives in my grandmother's apartment in 2003. Again, these were negatives, not prints (the scans in the National Library were done from the negatives, BTW). No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel (again one of Deror Avi's distorted quotes), but, since they are under copyright in the US (as far as I understand), the should not be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons project. That's the whole story. So please delete this photo from the project. Anyone can still enjoy it on Israel National Library internet site. And Deror - you made your point clear. No slandering is needed. Step down and let others - who may know the American Law better than you - judge.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- One comment. In Israel Or has not grounds for his legal arguments. He was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats. Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments. As to his legal arguments - it is wrong. The images were indead "published" in the early 30's. According to Israeli Law (as well as UK law) "publication" happens when one person other than the photographer sees the picture. Deror avi (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are pretty simple, no need to write so much. The photo was taken in 1933, was not known to anyone (except the creator) until 2003, not published until 2010. The creator died in 1992. As mentioned before, according to this official US Copyright Office document (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf), page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date: These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life plus 70 or 95/120 year terms apply to them as well." Copyright is automatic, not a single word about a need to register the copyright in order to secure it. If US laws are different, please provide some real evidence. A Wikimedia template is far from being a formal legal document (BTW, don't fully understand the meaning of "copyright notice" in the template that was referred to. If it means only a clear indication to the identity of the copyright holder, there was a clear copyright watermark on the original file that was manipulated by the Israeli Wikipedia user, but it was intentionally cropped by him before uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons servers).--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Deror Avi, if this photo had never before been published, {{PD-1996}} does not apply. Perhaps its text is a bit misleading. That is for photos which had already fallen into the public domain in the U.S., and did not get restored by the URAA. It was impossible for unpublished works to have ever fallen into the U.S. public domain in the first place before 2003 -- everything revolves around the publication date. If it was not published until after 2002, then its U.S. copyright term is a straight 70pma. If photos were actually published in the 1930s (be it the U.S., Israel, or Poland) then the determination would follow completely different lines, but unpublished works are pretty straightforward. It sounds like this photo would not have been restored by the URAA, but since it never fell into the public domain in the U.S. in the first place, there was no need. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, this time the misstatements are a bit too much. Let's go over Deror Avi's claims, as were written just here, in this discussion, and see whether any of them are right:
- "the issue in question is the Law at the country of origin". UNTRUE. The issue here is the law of the country of origin AND the US (as it is stated in the Wikimedia Commons licensing page: " works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work").
- "The relevent Wikimedia Commons policy is this one - the work was not published nor registered in the US prior to 1978 and therefore also free in the US". UNTRUE. The policy that is referred to states that a work that was published after 1978 (as this one) must be published "without copyright notice" in order to gain a PD status. Copyright notice means just a clear indication to copyright holders, not a registration, which, in our case, was clearly done on the original publication site (Israel National Library internet site) upon publication day (September 2010).
- "[Or] was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats". UNTRUE. I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia, nor threated anyone. The allegation for some kind of a "wrong" behavior from my side is nothing more than a mere slander.
- "Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments". UNTRUE. Gadi Aleksandrowicz – my brother, BTW – never made such a statement.
- "The images were indead "published" in the early 30's". UNTRUE. First of all, we are discussing a single image, not "images". This specific image under question was published first on Israel National Library site during September 2010. I would love to see some kind of a proof for the alleged early publication.
- "All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions". UNTRUE. I have never threatened anybody in Wikipedia with legal actions. I would also love to see the quote of these "threats".
- "In Hebrew wikipedia Or stated that: 1. The photographs were all published in the 1930th in the US." UNTRUE. I stated that A MINOR part of the photos was published in Poland and the US during the 1930's, and that some of the photographs were also printed in Poland. The photo under discussion here was not among them, like about 95% of the collection. I restate this for the third time. In case Deror still refuses to read my words, I would love him to supply some kind of evidence for an early publication of the photo under question here. Guess what – there is no such thing.
- "it is undisputed the images are PD in Israel, and has been so for more than 30 years. It is also free under US Law, and according to the Polish Law". UNTRUE. It is undisputed that the specific photo under question is in PD in Israel BUT it is disputed whether it is in PD in the US or not (BTW, what the hell has the Polish law to do with this specific photo and this specific discussion? I didn't mention it here, and it does not apply here. So many words, so little to do with this specific discussion). I provided some pretty fair reasons as a support for my claim that the photo is not in PD in the US (see above. Maybe this time Deror will read it carefully or at least will refute the clear words of the US copyright office document I refer to). In contrast, the only support for Deror's claim that the photo is in PD in the US is a reference to a Wikimedia policy which actually refutes his own claim (see clause 2 here).
I think it's about time Deror should let others support his views with some real legal evidence. It's also about time Deror stops making untrue allegations and misstatements. The above list speaks for itself. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep From looking at the old Israeli law, which was in force at the time of this photograph, it says 50 years (or in our case 51) after the photograph is taken, it will be placed into the public domain. The text reads "21. The term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty’s dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts." So, if you take this photograph date and add 51 years, it would be 1984 that the image fell into the public domain in Israel. It doesn't matter, according to this law, if the photograph was released later or scanned later. Under the 1911 law, the time starts when the photograph is made from the negative. Now to jump to the US issue; if you look at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm there is a section about works solely published abroad. From 1923 until 1977, if the work was "Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996" then such work would be in the United States. The work is public domain in Israel since 1984, so it is before that January 1996 cutoff date. There is no proof that the image was published in the United States at all; the person who brought this here said himself that it first seen the light of day in Israel in 2010. So, under the terms of what is at the Cornell page, and using Or's own words, the image is definitely public domain in the United States, thus satisfying the rules that Or keeps mentioning on how works must be PD in the source country and the United States. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was apparently never published until 2010, so it never became PD in the United States, and is still copyrighted there. It did not need to be restored by the URAA. Look in the "Unpublished" section of the chart you link; that is the appropriate term to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I am seeing of the old Israeli code, publication for photographs doesn't matter for their copyright term. Plus, there is "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" (so this would include 2010) and it reads "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)." Also, according to http://www.bh.org.il/database-article.aspx?56163, he was in Israel past 1930 so Israel would be the point of origin for his photos (before then, Poland). But we have to see the original URL for the image so we can see what exactly does the National Picture Archive (or the agency that has this photograph) say. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disputing the Israel part -- agree with you there. It's just the U.S. side of things. The URAA is not relevant since it didn't need to be restored, so the status in Israel on January 1, 1996 is not relevant here. Publishing in 2010 without a copyright notice has no consequence under U.S. law; lack of notice has not had any effect since March 1, 1989. If it was still copyrighted in the U.S. 2009 by virtue of being unpublished, then it's also copyrighted in 2011, regardless of intervening publication or notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find this photo online outside of Wikimedia mirrors; is there a way that either Or or Deror could find this image on the website that it is claimed to be taken from? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I gave a direct link above. It is located on the servers of Israel National Library. As you can see, since the copying of the file to Wikipedia, we have changed the position of the copyright watermark, so in the link you will see it in the center of the frame. When it was first downloaded the watermark (which was also smaller) was aligned to the lower part of the frame, and then intentionally cropped out by the Hebrew Wikipedia user who uploaded it to Wikipedia. This is also why the lower part of the photo is missing from the file that was uploaded. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see now. Generally, if the photo is public domain, cropping out the watermark (or finding a version without one) is preferred. I still need to look over and see if it still really is copyrighted in the US or not since for the Israeli terms, publication just meant taking a photo from the negative. I believe the image would still be on Wikipedia's servers (either en.wp or Hebrew, if it accepts fair use) but from my view and from what I have seen other people do, if we completely went by the US rule fully, many of the images we have now won't stay on Wikipedia. It is one of the most ignored, and also one of the most fought over, rules for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am only interested in this specific photo on this specific project (Commons). If we agree that this specific photo is under copyright in the US, and since the current Commons stated policy is not to allow uploading of copyrighted material according to US law, I do not see any good reason for not deleting it from Commons servers. It's about time. BTW, in the past I have suggested to upload some of my grandfather's photos to WP under the CC BY 2.5 license (attribution), which - if I understand correctly - is not accepted in the Commons project. For us, the attribution is a fundamental condition for sharing the material. This is also why I insist on deleting this photo from Commons.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing, referring to your argument about the "copyright notice". Let's assume you read that right, and copyright notice is a fundamental condition for gaining copyright in the US on unpublished works that were published after 1978. Upon first publication (the internet site of Israel National Library) a proper copyright notice was given, both on the photo itself (a watermark which was intentionally cropped by the WP uploader)) and below its thumbnail representation in the site itself. They both are still there since. See also here. If a copyright notice is there (as is the situation here), the statement you quote is not applicable, as far as I understand it. The PD status of the original photo in Israel - which is undisputed - has nothing to do with it.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attribution can always be given (even under CC-By-3.0). Deror avi (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's stick to deleting this one first.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC BY 2.5 is an accepted license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's stick to deleting this one first.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attribution can always be given (even under CC-By-3.0). Deror avi (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see now. Generally, if the photo is public domain, cropping out the watermark (or finding a version without one) is preferred. I still need to look over and see if it still really is copyrighted in the US or not since for the Israeli terms, publication just meant taking a photo from the negative. I believe the image would still be on Wikipedia's servers (either en.wp or Hebrew, if it accepts fair use) but from my view and from what I have seen other people do, if we completely went by the US rule fully, many of the images we have now won't stay on Wikipedia. It is one of the most ignored, and also one of the most fought over, rules for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I gave a direct link above. It is located on the servers of Israel National Library. As you can see, since the copying of the file to Wikipedia, we have changed the position of the copyright watermark, so in the link you will see it in the center of the frame. When it was first downloaded the watermark (which was also smaller) was aligned to the lower part of the frame, and then intentionally cropped out by the Hebrew Wikipedia user who uploaded it to Wikipedia. This is also why the lower part of the photo is missing from the file that was uploaded. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find this photo online outside of Wikimedia mirrors; is there a way that either Or or Deror could find this image on the website that it is claimed to be taken from? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disputing the Israel part -- agree with you there. It's just the U.S. side of things. The URAA is not relevant since it didn't need to be restored, so the status in Israel on January 1, 1996 is not relevant here. Publishing in 2010 without a copyright notice has no consequence under U.S. law; lack of notice has not had any effect since March 1, 1989. If it was still copyrighted in the U.S. 2009 by virtue of being unpublished, then it's also copyrighted in 2011, regardless of intervening publication or notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I am seeing of the old Israeli code, publication for photographs doesn't matter for their copyright term. Plus, there is "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" (so this would include 2010) and it reads "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)." Also, according to http://www.bh.org.il/database-article.aspx?56163, he was in Israel past 1930 so Israel would be the point of origin for his photos (before then, Poland). But we have to see the original URL for the image so we can see what exactly does the National Picture Archive (or the agency that has this photograph) say. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was apparently never published until 2010, so it never became PD in the United States, and is still copyrighted there. It did not need to be restored by the URAA. Look in the "Unpublished" section of the chart you link; that is the appropriate term to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many hoping the current legal challenge to the URAA is successful (I doubt it, at least in any way which would change things here), but many images PD in their country of origin have been kept at least temporarily with using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, but that wouldn't apply in this case (since the URAA would not be involved, presuming this was indeed unpublished). And even then, if there were requests from copyright holders on those images, I'm sure we'd take them down too (and would have little choice with a DMCA action). However, if you wanted to license this CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (any version) that'd be great -- those are acceptable licenses. We just can't accept licenses which have "NC" or "ND" in them. Attribution is required in many countries anyways through moral rights (even for PD works); the 3.0 versions of the CC licenses more strongly protect that aspect than earlier ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please delete this one first. We currently do not intend to make this specific photo available under any of the CC-BY licences. BTW, about a year ago I have tried to upload two of my grandfather's photos to Commons, one was published in 1931 in Poland and the other was probably printed in Palestine in 1936. These were deleted by Deror Avi on the spot, claiming that I should provide him all kinds of legal proofs for holding the copyright on these photos (this was done simultaneously with claiming that this photo is in PD). I think a somewhat different atmosphere should be an essential condition for sharing my grandfather's photos on Commons. Maybe after we see a real action is done in this case we will find the atmosphere more suitable. Just for general knowledge - our family invested (and still invests) thousands of hard work hours to make this unique collection available through Israel National Library site, without any financial reward of any kind. We are pro-share, but cannot accept intentional violation of rights.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many hoping the current legal challenge to the URAA is successful (I doubt it, at least in any way which would change things here), but many images PD in their country of origin have been kept at least temporarily with using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, but that wouldn't apply in this case (since the URAA would not be involved, presuming this was indeed unpublished). And even then, if there were requests from copyright holders on those images, I'm sure we'd take them down too (and would have little choice with a DMCA action). However, if you wanted to license this CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (any version) that'd be great -- those are acceptable licenses. We just can't accept licenses which have "NC" or "ND" in them. Attribution is required in many countries anyways through moral rights (even for PD works); the 3.0 versions of the CC licenses more strongly protect that aspect than earlier ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note -- http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm was updated for 2012, and fixed the published-in-foreign-country section to show this would be 70pma in the U.S. if first published in 2010. Also, just realizing that this file was not re-nominated for deletion, but we are only editing the old archived DR, which means no admins would really be looking at this to delete it. It probably should be re-nominated so others look at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to re-nominate this file for deletion, but couldn't find the proper procedure to follow. I only got to an undeleting page. If you can help with the right place to do it, I will re-nominate it gladly.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Nominate for deletion" in the lefthand column under Toolbox when viewing the file page. It adds notices to the uploader's talk page as well as re-nominating it (which will add another section to this page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I took care of it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Nominate for deletion" in the lefthand column under Toolbox when viewing the file page. It adds notices to the uploader's talk page as well as re-nominating it (which will add another section to this page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to re-nominate this file for deletion, but couldn't find the proper procedure to follow. I only got to an undeleting page. If you can help with the right place to do it, I will re-nominate it gladly.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note -- http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm was updated for 2012, and fixed the published-in-foreign-country section to show this would be 70pma in the U.S. if first published in 2010. Also, just realizing that this file was not re-nominated for deletion, but we are only editing the old archived DR, which means no admins would really be looking at this to delete it. It probably should be re-nominated so others look at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete But it's a shame that the holder of the copyright would rather destroy the image (putting watermark in the middle is destruction in my mind) than consider allowing others to use it. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Under http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (which was overhauled at the start of the year) it is 70 years PMA now for works that are published outside of the US. Under the rules of the Commons, it must be free in the COI and also the United States; in that case it is not free in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep According to 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A, if work is public domain in the "source country" on the "date of restoration", the copyright cannot be restored in the United States. And according to the Copyright Act 1911 (see {{PD-Israel}}), this image became public domain on 1 January of the 51st year after the creation of the photograph. This work has been public domain since January 1, 1984. So it was public domain in the "source country" on the "date of restoration" and the copyright cannot be restored in the United States. Takabeg (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Carl Lindberg's comment from 14:29, 10 December 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment According to the website of Beit Hatfutsof The Museum of the Jewish People, This unique collection was donated to the archive in 1985. Why the museum doesn't say We were centrusted the copyrights management of this unique collection. ? According to Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz Photo Collection, In the early 1930s Ze'ev published his photos in the Jewish press in Poland and the United States. I think we have to investigate very carefully and we must not easily accept claims of persons apart from of the real copyright holder. I think we must not delete images only with such ambiguous claims. As long as I understand, Or Aleksandrowicz, who distributes photographs of Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz in youtube for free, is not the copyright holder. Furthermore, there are many images like this. For example, the copyright of photographs taken by Yōsuke Yamahata (e.g. File:Nagasaki emergency relief.jpg, File:NagasakiSurvivors1945.png) had expired in Japan. But his son claims the duration of copyrights in the real world. Takabeg (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Beit Hetfutsot Museum received a handful of prints directly from my grandfather while he was still alive. At that time, nobody knew about the vast majority of the collection, which was left unknown until 2003, 11 years after my grandfather passed away. This vast collection, consisting of more than 15,000 negatives that were kept hidden in a small travelling bag (I can send you photos of it, if you don't believe), has nothing to do with the relatively small collection at Beit Hatfutsot. As I wrote earlier, my grandfather published tens of photos in some Jewish newspapers in Poland and USA during the 1930's, but, again, the number of these is pretty much limited. Here is a link to scans of these publications. The photo under discussion here - like the majority of the photos uploaded to the internet site of the National Library of Israel - has nothing to do with not with the small collection in Beit Hatfutsot nor with the published photos of the 1930's newspapers. I represent the copyright holders and directly involved in the management of the collection. What kind of "investigations" are needed? The major question here is the date of first publication. I claim this was in 2010, in the site of the National Library, and it is clear that the photo under discussion here was taken from there and NOT from any other source. As long as you cannot refute this claim (which will be very hard to do, believe me), I don't see the point of your "investigations".--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Carl Lindberg's comment from 14:29, 10 December 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Takabeg -- we would need to see that this photo was actually published in the 1930s, or was part of the 50 photos given to that other museum, for any of your information to have any effect. Many photographers of course had photos they took but never published at the time -- that is the claim here, and we would need direct evidence to contradict that. Can you find a copy of this photo elsewhere? Secondly, ownership of copyright typically passes to the heirs, and the person here would seem to be one of those. It's not simply a matter of trusting what they say (though the details do help quite a bit); to prove PD status in the U.S. we need to show that this photo was published (without a copyright notice) prior to 1989, and that is the only way we can keep it. I have not seen any reference to a source for this photo other than the one given above, which only shows publication in 2010 -- and also continued copyright ownership, where still valid, by the heirs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cmt Does Israeli-PD still apply if the copyright holder wishes to retain their rights? I ask this beacuse I have come across the website of the Palestine Exploration Project who have loads of old photo which they still claim are copyrighted. Chesdovi (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you are in Israel, then Israeli law applies; if you are in the United States then U.S. law applies. It is rather common for protection to expire in one country but still exist in another. It sounds like Israeli law limits copyright of photos to 50 years from creation, so most likely they are PD inside Israel, unless somehow Israel considers a simple scan of a PD work to have enough originality for the scan to have its own copyright (doubt it, but I'm coming from a U.S. perspective on such things). In the U.S., if these photos were only published for the first time recently, they might still have copyright -- everything depends on when and where it was published, when it was created, and possibly when the author died. Each country will apply its own rules, in general. Palestine... eugh. That's a messy situation due to all the politics; they are a WIPO observer but are not technically a member of the Berne Convention or anything like that. I think they have made some moves towards having a new copyright law but not sure exactly what law would apply there now. You may find more information here or here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is subject to Israeli law, where it is in the public domain. The photo was not taken in the US and the relevant US legal clause that applies, as far as I am aware, is that if it's PD in Israel it's automatically PD in the US. On a side note, since someone mentioned them, Palestinian Authority laws are completely irrelevant to this case. —Ynhockey (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the above inserts from Carl Lindberg, he is very clear regarding the fact that a photo can be in PD in Israel while receiving full copyright protection in the US (or in other places). The Israeli law applies to Israel, not to the whole world.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, so no, PD status in Israel does not mean they are PD in the U.S. Many countries, including Europe, does use that rule so the photo is likely PD in such places, but the U.S. is different. Furthermore, section 104A (the "restoration" stuff) of the law also does not apply, since its copyright was never lost in the first place and thus needed no restoration. (The Palestinian Authority is not relevant, correct, that was a tangent about some other photos.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment some photos by Lewis Carroll were deleted on questionable grounds, but this case seems clear: no prints had been made of these negatives until recently, the photo was not published. Free in Israel, still copyrighted in the US. Commons should move to a country that applies the rule of the shorter term (or it should just make it policy). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Per Carl. Not PD in the USA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious name, no description, no origin of the file, not usedPhso2 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
from http://picasaweb.google.com/magdalen22 - picasa washing?
- Could you elaborate as to what you mean by that? Thaifighter911 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - unclear and incorrect request - Jcb (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
dubious self-created Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- reasons?--Lamilli (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
mistake Vimala23 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
this is a composite of two copyrighted images, it can't possibly be a public domain image Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The original file was uploaded to en by a user who runs a number of "official" fansites. The image appears to be a video grab and it is not clear that the fansite would own the rights to such an image. They often claim credit for capturing images, but that does not mean they own them. Fixer23 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The deletion reason makes sense to me. I transferred the image to Commons because I thought it was free content. Graham87 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, you can't uncheck notify uploader when nominating files for deletion on Commons. Cheers! Fixer23 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
