Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
no permission by copyright owner. can't be considered public domain, just because it was submitted to a news website for their use. Polarlys (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your service, Polarlys. I'll just keep playing devil's advocate and carry on with the dialog on this one to enhance the process here. After having checked the logic of my own thinking, I personally believe the deletion of this photo constitutes a manifestation of stilted understanding of the purpose of copyrights and a minor flaw in the due process to adhere to respective law. In the beginning, the photo was shot with a mobile phone camera by a tourist who happened to be at the scene. Then this tourist electronically provided (via Yonhap's website) the photo to Yonhap in a good will without providing contact information. Yonhap specifically replied that they did not have the contact information when I requested the contact information of this photo to get the permission directly from this tourist. At this point, the rights to this photo belongs to Yonhap, as the person providing information to Yonhap through Yonhap's website has to legally agree to the transfer of rights upon any uploads. Then when I requested the permission to use the photos, Yonhap told me where they got the photos from, and that it could be used in Wikipedia "without any issues." I contacted the photo department directly and they sent me two unedited photos without Yonhap's watermark including this one. I'm open to learning more about the warranted issues you see in this, Polarlys, or anyone else who would be willing to give input here. Thanks. Clayjar (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Polarlys: the copyright holder is the tourist who took the picture. Commons:Licensing#South_Korea has "copyright persists until 50 years after the death of the last surviving creator". Commons will need a clear free license from the copyright holder. Assumptions and speculation are not sufficient. -84user (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The determination of who currently holds the right to offer the image as free would require a more precise examination of the wording of the contract between Yonhap and the uploaders of material to their site, to know what "transfer of rights" means. It is not infrequent that the laws of some countries allow that the copyright holder may be a person other than the creator, although the computation of the duration of the copyright held by this copyright holder is still based on the year of the death of the creator. But that doesn't really matter in this case anyway, because none of the two possible copyright holders has explicitely offered the image as a free image. If the rights are still held by the creator, he has not explicitely offered the image as a free image, reusable by anyone for any purpose. And if the rights are currently held by Yonhap, they have not offered it as a free image either. The wording of the permission "could be used in Wikipedia" (as reported above by Clayjar) does not make an image freely reusable by anyone for any purpose. Surprisingly, the wording of the permission is reported differently on the image description page, but even if the request for permission reported there mentions the GFDL, the reply reported there does not mention it, and so it still seems somewhat ambiguous. To be valid, the offer of a free image must be explicit and it cannot be implied. It is unfortunate that the reply from Yonhap was not clear, and not received through the OTRS process, although that would still have left the discussion about the matter of determining who holds the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. OTRS recieved ticket 2010112610001142 and ticket 2010112610003051, which may be related to this image. I hope some OTRS member check these mails. Thanks.--miya (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS states that they cannot confirm licensing for the image so this must be deleted sadly Herby talk thyme 14:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
the white space around the logo is not needed and under the filename "logo_fsveibau.svg" is the current version already online Nohak (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Logo fsveibau.svg -- Common Good (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
All 3 New Files Walter Zarnowitz (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Do we usually delete the old files after someone has improved them? I didn't think so. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 
Done -- Common Good (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
changed filename, and updated all file links to new file name "2010-04-10 3000x2000 oakpark nathan g moore house.jpg" Jcrocker (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:2010-04-10 3000x2000 oakpark nathan g moore house.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Rupert_Murdoch_dabbles_in_Socialist_Realism,_David_Cameron_SUN_cover_shot,_London,_UK.jpg
[edit]The copyright of this newspaper cover is retained by the newspaper publisher and cannot be released on the free license stated. Fæ (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW. sугсго 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete The creator of the medal, Karl Goetz, died in 1950, so its copyright has not expired in the source country Germany (and will not expire until 2022September 2021). Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- 2021. It's 70pma, not 71 pma. sугсго 13:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, German law doesn't specify that copyright lasts to the end of the calender year, so it would be September 2021. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- It lasts until the end of the calender year. Thus Goetz' works will be in the public domain from January 1st 2021 on. Chaddy (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good lord, got me. Hekerui (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It lasts until the end of the calender year. Thus Goetz' works will be in the public domain from January 1st 2021 on. Chaddy (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a scan (COM:DW ?) - I'm not all that good at German, can't tell for sure what the situation is and if uploader has the right to release it under CC-license. –Krinkletalk 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep - uploader's mother-in-law had owned this ink drawing; uploader has the right to publish this under any license he wants. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason to keep this file. I could scan a filmposter hanging in a room of my mother's house, but no way that's going to live long as "Own work" on Commons. –Krinkletalk 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is oploader's own work in the sense that he is its sole owner and in the sense that he digitized it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason to keep this file. I could scan a filmposter hanging in a room of my mother's house, but no way that's going to live long as "Own work" on Commons. –Krinkletalk 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - The original of the Indian ink drawing is my property and older than 200 years. Ludwig Friedrich Oberländer was a direct ancestor of my deceased husband.--GFHund (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain how the rights were transferred to you. ZooFari 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, in that case it could be {{PD-old}}, but certainly not {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. –Krinkletalk 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader inherited the ink drawing. If it was never published, he has publication rights and can license it any way he wants. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The ink drawing is an unikat, which is inherited (in the family) to son, to daughter, to son, to daughter, to daughter, to daughter, to husband (the uploader).--GFHund (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first publication of this over 200 years old image, the publisher (i.e. the uploader) has editio princeps publication right in Germany for 25 years after publication and of course can choose to publish it under a free license, e.g. CC-BY-SA or GNU-FDL. If it is the first publication, pd-old would be wrong, as in this case it's not PD in Germany and probably the whole EU. If it was published before (more than 25 years ago), it is pd-old, but only in this case. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anyway there is no reason for deletion. -- smial (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- KeepYes, that's true - probably it is indeed the first publication, so the licensing by the owner and uploader is correct. If it weren't correct, then it would be pd-old and still could be kept. But the image description should be improved. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:2008 Democratic Primary results, by county.svg
- File:Results by County of the 2008 Dem Presidential Primaries.png
- File:Results by County of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries 2.png
- File:Results by County of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries.png
Unused and incomplete (and thus unencyclopedic) map; superseded by File:Results by county of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't know who the photographer was or if this is a federal work. This was lifted from the BOP website, but that does not guarantee that it is a federal work. 66.173.140.100 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons website does not assert copyright. The image was uploaded after this query at Commons talk:Licensing#U.S. government building image. The above request is presumed to be posted as a result of this discussion on the English Wikipedia. KimChee (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ever since the 1976 Copyright Act, there is no requirement on the website to post a copyright notice. It is entirely possible that the website posted the photo without even telling the photographer. The answer given at Commons talk:Licensing#U.S. government building image was far from definitive, and was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)
- Based on edit history, deletion nominator may be a possible IP sock of User:Racepacket. KimChee (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ever since the 1976 Copyright Act, there is no requirement on the website to post a copyright notice. It is entirely possible that the website posted the photo without even telling the photographer. The answer given at Commons talk:Licensing#U.S. government building image was far from definitive, and was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)
There is a related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/November#Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)
- Keep I see no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I received the following email reply from the U.S. Department of Justice / Bureau of Prisons: KimChee (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Photos on the BOP's public website are considered to be in the public domain; but if you plan to use them, we ask that you appropriately credit the Federal Bureau of Prisons as the source.
The Bureau's Public Information Office is (and has been) located at the agency's Central Office at the following address:
Federal Bureau of Prisons ATTN: Public Information Office 320 First St., NW Washington, DC 20534
We hope this helps.Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Reopened discussion. The comment cited above from the DOJ is not consistent with the copyright information linked to the web site from which this image was taken which explicitly says that there may be material on DOJ web sites which was created by contractors and, therefore, not PD. It goes on to say that permission for reuse of those images must be obtained from the contractor. Since we have no way of knowing the status of this image, I think it must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete SIRIS says: "1991. Copyrighted 1991. Dedicated Sept. 17, 1991." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - 2004 statue by Lark Dimond-Cates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- When was this made? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor Edward Joseph Dwight, Jr., born 1933, living. Installation date on plinth is 1984. No copyright registered (only two Dwight works have registrations). Unknown whether there is notice on the statue, therefore, Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment but was the statue copyrighted? when was it unveiled? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. This is a derivative work. Karppinen (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To what extent is this a derivative work of the Super Mario Bros. video games? Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of this copyrighted poster. Karppinen (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of this copyrighted poster. Karppinen (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I do not see that, but there is not COM:FOP#Greece. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of copyrighted comic character. Copyright is owned by Bill Watterson. Karppinen (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Likely a copyright violation, as images from this Flickr user have been deleted. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Karppinen (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete, violentsilence is a flickr washing account by Special:Contributions/A31lover. --Martin H. (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. If we delete this, we may want to restore it at w:File:EvoMoralesCircusAmok.jpg for possible fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't care if this low-res photo of mine taken with a throw-away point-and-shoot in 2006 is deleted, but if these are the things you guys are deleting as 'derivative works' I can only imagine what else you all are deleting. This is clearly derivative, and is far more about the five acrobats and their homage at a circus than it is about the representation of Evo Morales. I find this deletion request pretty ridiculous. It's not like it would be a big loss for Commons if you got rid of it, but still... --David Shankbone (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is? If it is about the acrobats, then it is de minimis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not see a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
delete:
- File:Day.gif
- File:Dilan.jpg
- File:Tecladop.jpg
- File:Estelariera.gif (may be keepable with {{PD-ineligible}} but too low res (cannot read text) and not used and not description of colors, ...)
same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aurariera.jpg. no permission, if copied from given source. unclear if uploader and claimed author is also owning the websites has provided as source for his image uploads. Possible copyvios. Saibo (Δ) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 28#File:Cochinport.JPG, image is likely copied from a post at the skyscraperscity forums and not work of the uploader. — ξxplicit 04:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 28#File:Cochinport.JPG, image is likely copied from a post at the skyscraperscity forums and not the work of the uploader. — ξxplicit 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
almost certain copyright violation; doubtful that it was in fact created by the uploader, as claimed Trivialist (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It was a scanned sticker, I would have attached it everywere. I think that it is comparable with a work of my own, like a picture took to a logo. Don't you think the same? Lorenzo
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted vehicle. The copyright rests with the copyright owner of the Star Trek movie series in which this vehicle appears. This is not an ordinary vehicle that you see used on the road. It was made for a film only and that makes it a derivative, I would think. Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Crazy runner (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted map 78.55.210.188 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not about the map; it is a very good photo of a magnifying glass. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I question whether it is own work, the only contribution of user, no meta data and if in Brussels no FOP for this in Belgium Wouter (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is FOP in Belgium now, but the other reasons for deletion are still valid: "I question whether it is own work, the only contribution of user, no meta data." Moreover, Belgian FOP only covers "public places". This does not seem to be a public place. BrightRaven (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
source points to "photobucket image host": http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m348/sargodha10/43.jpg. Evidence why this image can be published under a CC-by-sa-3.0 licence is missing High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is clear that the uploader is not the copyright holder, other images (cropped) exist elsewhere (tineye and Pakistan Defence Blog [not an official blog of the PAF]) and have been online before this was uploaded to commons. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. PhotoBucket is never a reliable image source for Commons. They do not check for copyright status. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 10:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, feel free to delete my picture, it is not so beautiful. If ther is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia, does this concern all pictures in Category:Main building of Moscow State University and all pictures of Russia in Commons? Or what are the criteria? --Bin im Garten (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Dura lex sed lex = „Das Gesetz (ist) hart, aber (es ist) das Gesetz.“) --91.97.96.251 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is at least a little bit Freedom of Panorama in Russia (Panoramafreiheit#Russland) --Bin im Garten (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Dura lex sed lex = „Das Gesetz (ist) hart, aber (es ist) das Gesetz.“) --91.97.96.251 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 10:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - there is no copyright on water. Not even in Arabia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 10:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of Miro's sculpture, wich is not in the public domain.
--Irønie (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence for a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licence High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
File:OgAAAMkrDonU6x6Fn0IvTIadFkIRnC-_bia_BtWxSBFO7oxcF5nLb1MB0M_ZhmiSoArhved7kQOQrVJ5A99v9jgVb2QAm1T1UNv9HDifqAlk_IiVt7IsrwynQd2O.jpg
[edit]useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
File from a flickr-batch, this specific file is unusable due very poor quality. Gohe007 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 13:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense! Its a picture of that guy with the buildings just de minimis. (Being a personal picture that's out of scope is another story.) -- 178.190.200.51 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sand storms are not copyrighted; in use on user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - already by Jim - Jcb (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a family album Nino Verde (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - user image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep It is true that Commons is not a family album, but we allow all users, even newbies, an image for their user page -- see User:Stoff. Please check to see if a file is in use before nominating it for deletion for reasons other than copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 13:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - the Canadian (!) copyright holder of the sculpture released it - Jcb (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - it has full exif data, so it seems to not have been captured from a website - Jcb (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a fool. I believed the OTRS correspondent, checked first three, looked OK - then ifnd one with a magazine fold in the middle. Silly. Guy 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. TomAlt (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Nikon Coolpix L5 released on 2006, then howcome this image in 1970 taken by this camera, Uploader taken this from a printed photo, where the original photographer is somebody else Kalarickan | My Interactions 14:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Its already deleted for this reason: Nikon Coolpix L5 released on 2006, then howcome this image in 1970 taken by this camera, Uploader taken this from a printed photo, where the original photographer is somebody else Kalarickan | My Interactions 11:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Gundam statue
[edit]Unique artwork clearly derivated from the original Gundam serie. And Japan doesn't allow the freedom of panorama for artwork. --Binabik155 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The images are obviously centered on the statue, which is presumably not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - think it is a bit unfair to list both of these images together (to be fair, I took one of them) because they are quite different. Can I get a quote for why an image of Odaiba with a robot in it is not usable on Wikimedia Commons? The deletionists sure are in full force these days. Anyway, if it is made clear that my image is not usable I am up for it's deletion, but if it is not made clear it should be kept. Nesnad (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of both files because the copyright issue is the same for me (picture centered on an artwork). If I make a mistake, I'm really sorry... but a deletion request is a good way to get opinion on copyright matter, isn't it ? Now, please consult this page : "Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places [...], only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons." That's my point. Binabik155 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- This was not a public art located permanently in an open place. It was a temporary exhibition of a robot that no longer can be found at that location. Your quote does not apply? Nesnad (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then, that is only more reason to delete. If the work was not permanently located in an open place, that means that the Japanese law does not allow its reproduction even for non-commercial purposes. Anyway, it is not allowed by the US law either. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding what this object is? It is not a static statue, it is an articulated (but not walking) robot. Where is the law that says that can't have it's picture taken? If that is so, then it would be hard to take pictures out side in the land of robots ;) I am not saying you are wrong, I am open to being wrong, but I am trying to find out what and if there is a violation here. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's all about that: is it an artwork ot not ? It seems so for me. And the word "statue" is not only mine (cf. for example here and here). Anyway, defined it as a robot is a bit curious... Binabik155 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The kind of "statue" I think you mean, does not move. This was a robot in the sense it was articulated, and moved. Not some static statue. Nesnad (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) NINJA EDIT: My point being this is not an object that can easily fit into the links provided by the delationists above for the reason it should be deleted. Nesnad (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a picture of an articulated robot that was located in a public space but now is not there. Is there something specific that says this kind of thing is impermissible here? --Douglaspperkins (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The basic principle of copyright law is that any work of creation is protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced in any medium without the explicit consent of its author, save for specific exceptions. The law makes no specific exception for photographs of works of creation representing particular subjects such as articulated robots, or green unicorns, or female smurfs. It also does not matter if it the thing is still there or not. This work is protected like any other. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a picture of an articulated robot that was located in a public space but now is not there. Is there something specific that says this kind of thing is impermissible here? --Douglaspperkins (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The kind of "statue" I think you mean, does not move. This was a robot in the sense it was articulated, and moved. Not some static statue. Nesnad (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) NINJA EDIT: My point being this is not an object that can easily fit into the links provided by the delationists above for the reason it should be deleted. Nesnad (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's all about that: is it an artwork ot not ? It seems so for me. And the word "statue" is not only mine (cf. for example here and here). Anyway, defined it as a robot is a bit curious... Binabik155 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding what this object is? It is not a static statue, it is an articulated (but not walking) robot. Where is the law that says that can't have it's picture taken? If that is so, then it would be hard to take pictures out side in the land of robots ;) I am not saying you are wrong, I am open to being wrong, but I am trying to find out what and if there is a violation here. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then, that is only more reason to delete. If the work was not permanently located in an open place, that means that the Japanese law does not allow its reproduction even for non-commercial purposes. Anyway, it is not allowed by the US law either. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- This was not a public art located permanently in an open place. It was a temporary exhibition of a robot that no longer can be found at that location. Your quote does not apply? Nesnad (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of both files because the copyright issue is the same for me (picture centered on an artwork). If I make a mistake, I'm really sorry... but a deletion request is a good way to get opinion on copyright matter, isn't it ? Now, please consult this page : "Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places [...], only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons." That's my point. Binabik155 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- So if the picture were off-center, then it would be not up for deletion? ... not that I can go back and photograph it again, but hypothetically? --Douglaspperkins (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- My use of the word "centered" (which may or may not be correct, as English is not my native language) simply meant to convey the notion that the work is clearly a subject of the photo. It is not only incidental. By contrast, for example, had you meant to photograph essentially the city skyline and the trees, and in so doing, a part of a foot of the robot only happened to get included incidentally on one side of the photo, that might have been ok. Please see the policy Commons:De minimis for a more detailed explanation. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This ad may violate the Gundam series' copyright, I guess (derivate work). Binabik155 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This ad may violate the Gundam series' copyright, I guess (derivate work). Binabik155 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by N.monte (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - only nominated one, other upload don't share the issues - Jcb (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Moldova. Who is sculptor? What is dates of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Moldova. Who is sculptor? What is dates of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Marameo (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be from this series. --Elekhh (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The style of this picture is primarily used by aircraft manufacturers. This photo was found in the company's image gallery.[1] Photo was uploaded by the same user who engaged in copyvio by uploading image from company's website (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:SAI747.jpg). OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Image taken from company's website.[2] OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is where I am suppose to post my comments, but I would like to say that Wikipedia is a great source for information and education and the use of this photo seems to me to be appropriate and practical and should remain as a resource for the subject it is associated with. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.101.152.215 (talk) 00:17, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot host copyrighted materials on Commons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
poor quality (File:Gare de Saint-Marcel41.JPG is a better one) Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - it doesn't need to be deleted for that reason. Wikimedia Commons contains more than one different foto's of a lot of subjects - Jcb (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not the author - unvalid license -- Badener 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete You are right, I do agree that this user who has uploaded this image does not have the right of uploading an image which does not belong to him/her. Therefore, it should be deleted right away. LunaHunting (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: the the source website http://www.kuehntopf.ch clearly states "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" "all rights reserved" and this uploader has reuploaded at least one other image from this copyright source after it was delete. Ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop I myself shot this pic with my mobile on October 24. Furthermore: in the meantime the website states "Alle Texte und Fotos auf dieser Website sind frei verwendbar". - HaTikwa (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then, why did you write "author=E. Rey"? Besides, as this photo seems to have been shot in a closed space, did all identifiable people agree to its publication? --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep E. Rey is his obvious real name. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - source site allows free use - Jcb (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The logo does not seem original enough to me. ZooFari 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - I agree with you, so PD-textlogo applies - Jcb (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Was taken from Bureau of Prisons website without any identification of photographer or whether photo was taken as a part of official duties. The photographer may hold the copyrights in the photo. 66.173.140.100 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain the relationship between this photo and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Home_Loan_Bank_Board_Building.jpg. If we have a free use image of the same building from almost the same vantage point, why keep one that is of questionable provinance?
- The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons website does not assert copyright. The image was uploaded after this query at Commons talk:Licensing#U.S. government building image. The above request is presumed to be posted as a result of this discussion on the English Wikipedia. Deletion nominator is a possible IP sock of User:Racepacket. KimChee (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Images_from_Bureau_of_Prisons_Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)
- Unless you see separate photo credits, on a U.S. Government website you must assume that the U.S. government directly had the photo taken.
- Only use the "this is a nonfree" card if you have evidence that someone else took the picture.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- We now have an oral statement that this was taken by a BOP employee. But given that commons has a very similar photo (of better quality) of the same building from the same vantage point, this image should be deleted to save us the trouble of going through OTRS to document its status.
- The photograph is File:Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building.jpg
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Was taken from Bureau of Prisons website without any identification of photographer or whether photo was taken as a part of official duties. The photographer may hold the copyrights in the photo. 66.173.140.100 19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons website does not assert copyright. The image was uploaded after this query at Commons talk:Licensing#U.S. government building image. The above request is presumed to be posted as a result of this discussion on the English Wikipedia. Deletion nominator is a possible IP sock of User:Racepacket. KimChee (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is a related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Images_from_Bureau_of_Prisons_Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk • contribs)
- Unless you see separate photo credits, on a U.S. Government website you must assume that the U.S. government directly had the photo taken.
- Only use the "this is a nonfree" card if you have evidence that someone else took the picture.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I respect your views. However, I read Wikipedia policy as saying you can't assume, and must have some basis for the selection of a particular template because you are certain that "it is a work of the United States Federal Government" and not of a Government contractor. For example, {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} requires you to state it is the work of "a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties."
- I just sent an e-mail to the admins at USP Victorville. They have the responsibility of distinguishing PD from non PD. They will tell us the answer. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- BOP has not yet responded with an answer, but are "still working on it." 66.173.140.100 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just sent an e-mail to the admins at USP Victorville. They have the responsibility of distinguishing PD from non PD. They will tell us the answer. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I respect your views. However, I read Wikipedia policy as saying you can't assume, and must have some basis for the selection of a particular template because you are certain that "it is a work of the United States Federal Government" and not of a Government contractor. For example, {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} requires you to state it is the work of "a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties."
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
redirects to itself Fastboy (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Empty category in Category:Nikolai Vatutin makes no sense.--Fastboy (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - I deleted the page, but didn't see an empty category - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 20:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a piece of art though. Gryffindor (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.183.12 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a piece of art but an aquarium. Therefore FoP does not apply here. Gryffindor (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
File from flickr batch upload, personal picture Gohe007 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 28#File:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What is the problem with this file? It is obviously a UK government file, in the public domain as an image prior to 1957. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.southernair.com/modules/Content/DisplayImage.aspx?w=800&url=~/Collateral/Images/English-US/Galleries/saiglamourshot2.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep There is in fact no problem at all with this file taken as picture in 1942. It is just another disruptive deletion request by an user who obviously has no competence in airplanes and their history. I know that not all can be airplane experts but in this case the picture is obviously taken by a member of the Fleet Air Arm (see also at en Wikipedia) as dependant of the Britsh government and is obviously taken before 1957 as to this year the Fairey Barracuda (see also at en Wikipedia) was already removed from service with the Fleet Air Arm and all remaining planes had been scrapped. So therefore in that year no Fairey Barracuda was to be found in existence as they were long gone and also unfortunately no single plane of these has survived until today. As second issue the picture was also used several times by the Royal Navy in printed works and other autors for their works and/or books so it had been also commercially published prior to 1960 as well. Being a colour image does not imply that the picture is taken after 1957 and therefore unfree as colour photograpy was already starting to be available in the 1930s. I would like to remind that there are a lot of colour photos and colour movies to be found from that time on through the 1940s and 1950s onwards. The picture is therefore definitely free and has to be kept in any way. I would like to ask once again to stop posting deletion request like these as they are only a bloody waste of time for all... if there is a doubt or a question I would rather suggest to use the discussion page before. Reptil (♣) 1 Dec 2010, 21:30 (UTC)
- I am simply taking a decision from en.wikipedia and letting you all know about it. I'm rather neutral. If I'm unsure of a file, yes, I will nominate it for deletion. Frankly, as one of the sysops from en.wp with more image-related knowledge than most, I find your response to be quite m:dickish. Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you in these areas, and holding that against someone else is rude. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to be rude and I didn't want to hold anything against someone else. What you were taking here from en.Wikipedia however you may call it is definitely wrong and lacks any substance. If you are unsure of a file, it is not the best to nominate it for deletion, what you did is simply not wise to say the least. Possibly unfree is a swampy argument as in theory every file can be that. If you are in fact neutral - what is fine with me - then just do not post such deletion requests and better ask in the discussion page what others may say how the facts are. I tell you that going the way of the less resistance by asking for deletion at the smallest doubt is never the best way and there is no need to be a sysop at en.wikipedia to understand that. You have to take all the consequences when you post deletion requests that are not right and outrage others. Be careful what you say calling my response like you did because i am most willing to counter by calling your deletion request m:dickish in its very sense. If you really would have more image-related knowledge than most, you wouldn't have posted such a deletion request. If you may have been right sometimes now this time your are completely wrong. Whatever your opinion or the one of your supporter User ww2censor might be (in fact what he states is simply ridiculous) the facts are those pointed out by me and the file has to kept in any way. Reptil (♣) 7 Dec 2010, 09:55 (UTC)
- This is the reason why many of our boards on English wp are called XfD, not X for deletion but X for discussion. Commons lacks a possibly unfree files page - this is as close as it gets. And if the file is truly free, the investigation here will show that, and the file is in no danger of deletion. If I was going to do the dickish thing, I would have simply marked the file with {{copyvio|Here's the English discussion; please delete this file now}}. As it stands, no one reads the talk page of the given images, so posting there is useless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK let's assume that you are neutral regarding the file and the commons lack such a specialized page. I am nevertheless sure the investigation will show that it is free. It is more than obvious. Otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded it. And yes to have had marked it as copyvio would have been indeed what you mentioned once again. Would have amused all here! Reptil (♣) 7 Dec 2010, 13:42 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete:While the photo was undoubtably taken before 1957, there is no evidence that the photo was ever Crown Copyright - no credit is given in the source website. Just because it is a photo of a Royal Navy aircraft DOES NOT mean it is crown copyright - it may have been taken by a press photographer - and some British press photographers were active during the second world war taking colour photos. This photo should not be kept unless there is some evidence that it was Crown Copyright.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was my point, thanks. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- No sorry this is ridiculous... I can't stop being very surprised about this strange and impractical attitude of two Britons here towards pictures taken in Britain... even more with one stating to know more than others about copyright issues. But for heaven's sake they are alone with the neglectible minority opinion they share. Nigel Ish and Magog the Ogre you are completely wrong and i will tell you how and why. The photo is indeed obviously taken before 1957 AND it has been published in commercial printwork before 1960 too. Your statement that it could have been taken by some British press photographer is erratic and nothing else that bloody speculation, as it is very much less likely that a civilian press photographer was taken airborne to picture a Fairey Barracuda of the Fllet Air Arm of the Royal Navy in full flight in 1942 other than with much more known aircraft of the Royal Air Force. Do you really believe the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy dared to take any civilians in the air to take pictures of the Fairey Barracuda in full flight in 1942? I dare to remind you that the Fairey Barracuda is a very specialised naval aircraft, it is not a Supermarine Spitfire or Hawker Hurricane that were by far much more known among the common people and every schoolboy knew them as these two planes were also used in a propangandistic role to enforce defence of the country. But this was very different with the Fairey Barracuda and other naval aircraft like e.g. Blackburn Skua, Fairey Albacore, Fairey Fulmar, Supermarine Seafire, Fairey Firefly, Supermarine Seafang, Hawker Sea Fury, Blackburn Firebrand and so much more. With your unfounded speculation lacking any practical sense you could put every WWII picture of British warplanes in question whether free or not. This would be like trying to be more catholic than the pope, more protestant than Martin Luther and more anglican than the Queen! Nigel Ish You can NOT prove that the picture was taken by any British press photographer if you like it or not. It is not enough to say it may have been taken by a press photographer even if there were active press photographers around taking colour photos in WWII. I also tell you that the vast majority of them took pictures of planes of the Royal Air Force more intersting to the public instead of ones of Royal Navy planes. It would be crazy to start putting every British WWII warplane picture in question this way. And I also dare to remind you that there are very few pictures where there is a credit what person took the picture, even with Spitfires and Hurricanes, show me a single picture where a personal credit is given in the source website, you won't succeed as there is almost none. In this case here of the Fairey Barracuda picture of 1942 the circumstances of 1942 IMPLY that the picture of the Fairey Barracuda was taken by an unknown airman of the Fleet Air Arm, there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CIVILIAN PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER or any other civilian whatsoever could have taken such a picture of a naval aircraft in full flight and then still not yet completely out of experimental stage. WE HAVE TO assume it was taken by an unknown airman of the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy under the circumstances of the time and the history of the airplane itself. So as the picture was also published before 1960 in printed work by the Royal Navy and other book authors before that year it UNDOUBTEDLY COMPLIES TO THE CROWN COYRIGHT. This photo has therefore to be kept in any way. Reptil (♣) 15 Dec 2010, 18:38 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't work like that - it is a repository for Free images - not images that we would like to be free - If we cannot show that the image is free then it doesn't belong here. The only ungounded speculation is that the photo is Crown Copyright. Good sources will often credit photos as Crown Copyright or Official if they are crown copyright - if they are not credited, then we cannot normally know with sufficient confidence that the image is free. For example - see here - most of these photos of Fairey Barracudas are credited as official.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness! Either you do not understand what the the matter of facts is or you simply do not want to understand it. By the way I know how Commons works as I am not a newbie here so no need to explain it at all. This image is free if you like it or not and is not an image that would like to be free. It is you who is trying to make this image a would like to be free unfree one. Once again you are wrong assuming it was taken by any civilian press photographer. Your statements if we cannot show that the image is free then it doesn't belong here and the only ungounded speculation is that the photo is Crown Copyright are smply ridiculous. We can show that the photo has been taken before 1957 and was published before 1960. Even more ridiculous is your other statement Good sources will often credit photos as Crown Copyright or Official if they are crown copyright - if they are not credited, then we cannot normally know with sufficient confidence that the image is free. What the heck are good sources please? The source you mentioned isn't really good and means nothing as the pictures are unusable here as they are too small and of poor resolution... And even here anyone could come and put the authenticity of the source into question in theory. You should know that not all pictures neither are nor can be credited as you would like to as not always it is still known who took them by name and rank whatsoever! And who told you that otherwise we can not normally know with sufficient confidence that the image is free? Come on! It is clean and simple: If the aircraft in the picture is taken in a certain time before 1957 (in fact in 1942) and no such planes existed any more until 1957 and the image had been used by the Royal Navy itself in their printwork and also published before 1960 in commercial books then it is obviously within the margin of Crown Copyright! You want it more official than that or what? And what is this statement from you If we cannot show that the image is free then it doesn't belong here? Well for heaven's sake it is not you who decides or has the last word about keeping or not keeping this image. So as said by me in what i have written afore the only bloody speculaton here is yours trying to deceive all by stating that the image is possibly unfree. This is an attempt to destroy honorable work by a pedant custom who is overly concerned with formalism trying to make a show of his learning like comparable to try to be more catholic than the pope and more protestant than Martin Luther and more anglican than the Queen to say the least! Nigel Ish if you can prove that the picture was taken by any civilian British press photographer i am free to talk about its deletion but you will never ever be able to in your whole life if you like it or not. Of course you are free to play the knight of the free images but your minoritarian and erratic point of view will surely not convince anyone here. I suggest you should read the terms of Crown Copyright carefully in all details. Again it UNDOUBTEDLY COMPLIES TO THE CROWN COYRIGHT and therefore to be kept in any way. Reptil (♣) 17 Dec 2010, 18:28 (UTC)
- No-one has done anything to show where the photo has come from - the source website makes no claim of the source of the images on it, and despite your continuing claims, not every photo of a British World War 2 aircraft was taken by a member of the armed forces or other employee of the UK govenment - private photographers such as E. Brown remained very busy, working both as a press and commercial photographer. Brown, for example retained the copyright in his wartime photos, including the rare colour photos he was only able to take because he recieved a stock of Kodachrome from the US as a result of a commission for an American aircraft magazine, selling his collection to the RAF Museum in 1980, which he could't have done if it was all Crown Copyright anyway. And please desist from the personal attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- By the way... if you still can not take distance from your doubts by all means... there is a way to go... contact the Royal Navy about this picture and you will see that I am right and the image is taken by an airman of the FAA and is therefore free as official photo covered by Crown Copyright as it had also been published before 1960. Reptil (♣) 17 Dec 2010, 18:38 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness! Either you do not understand what the the matter of facts is or you simply do not want to understand it. By the way I know how Commons works as I am not a newbie here so no need to explain it at all. This image is free if you like it or not and is not an image that would like to be free. It is you who is trying to make this image a would like to be free unfree one. Once again you are wrong assuming it was taken by any civilian press photographer. Your statements if we cannot show that the image is free then it doesn't belong here and the only ungounded speculation is that the photo is Crown Copyright are smply ridiculous. We can show that the photo has been taken before 1957 and was published before 1960. Even more ridiculous is your other statement Good sources will often credit photos as Crown Copyright or Official if they are crown copyright - if they are not credited, then we cannot normally know with sufficient confidence that the image is free. What the heck are good sources please? The source you mentioned isn't really good and means nothing as the pictures are unusable here as they are too small and of poor resolution... And even here anyone could come and put the authenticity of the source into question in theory. You should know that not all pictures neither are nor can be credited as you would like to as not always it is still known who took them by name and rank whatsoever! And who told you that otherwise we can not normally know with sufficient confidence that the image is free? Come on! It is clean and simple: If the aircraft in the picture is taken in a certain time before 1957 (in fact in 1942) and no such planes existed any more until 1957 and the image had been used by the Royal Navy itself in their printwork and also published before 1960 in commercial books then it is obviously within the margin of Crown Copyright! You want it more official than that or what? And what is this statement from you If we cannot show that the image is free then it doesn't belong here? Well for heaven's sake it is not you who decides or has the last word about keeping or not keeping this image. So as said by me in what i have written afore the only bloody speculaton here is yours trying to deceive all by stating that the image is possibly unfree. This is an attempt to destroy honorable work by a pedant custom who is overly concerned with formalism trying to make a show of his learning like comparable to try to be more catholic than the pope and more protestant than Martin Luther and more anglican than the Queen to say the least! Nigel Ish if you can prove that the picture was taken by any civilian British press photographer i am free to talk about its deletion but you will never ever be able to in your whole life if you like it or not. Of course you are free to play the knight of the free images but your minoritarian and erratic point of view will surely not convince anyone here. I suggest you should read the terms of Crown Copyright carefully in all details. Again it UNDOUBTEDLY COMPLIES TO THE CROWN COYRIGHT and therefore to be kept in any way. Reptil (♣) 17 Dec 2010, 18:28 (UTC)
Deleted. - we need evidence, not impudence - Jcb (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 28#File:909.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Disclaimer, in Georgian says "We have published some of the text of the Copyright Notice. Please, without the permission of the authors do not use." As we don't know the author information, we cannot establish this is in fact a PD work, despite the old artwork (it may be, e.g., more recent and made to look old) Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The disclaimer speaks about text. The file name indicates that this is fresco. It can seen that to the other file from the same page attached the name of creator. I think that the fresco is from Old Goa as it can be seen in this article (lead from her). Anyway I'll ask the original uploader to made responce her. Geagea (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't guess how can text be in touch with images, and I think that this is an icon by Sabinin (But I may be wrong.)--George, 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is definitely not an icon by Sabinin, but looks to be an older wall painting. I've no further information on this image, unfortunately. --Kober (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't guess how can text be in touch with images, and I think that this is an icon by Sabinin (But I may be wrong.)--George, 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, it seems to me we should either scrub the disclaimer or delete the image outright. Would anyone feel comfortable sending an email to the webmaster of the page? He/she may or may not be currently active and maintaining it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check it. Geagea (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I send a mail requesting details or OTRS permission. Geagea (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No comment yet. --Geagea (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
