Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_(po_prawej)_-_Prezes_Polskiego_Związku_Lekkiej_Atletyki,_Warszawa_1967.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
there is a new .png version, same user Holger Casselmann (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Spherical molecular cloud d hc2.png Leyo 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
there is a .png version, same user Holger Casselmann (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Jeans hc2.png Leyo 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Frór (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete typo in namespace. Benchill (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: I think this file needs an OTRS permission, the file is available at http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurpictures/ig/Ankylosaur-Pictures/Minotaurasaurus.htm Yann (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Before delation links between User:ArthurWeasley and User:NobuTamura have to be clarifyed (User talk:ArthurWeasley and User talk:NobuTamura)
Keep If you go to that link and hit prev, you come to this page http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurpictures/ig/Ankylosaur-Pictures/Minmi.htm . You'll note they didn't waste any time figuring out who to attribute that one to, and just labeled it Wikimedia Commons. Someone needs to take a cluestick to about.com about how to legally reuse our photos. But for now, I think it sufficient to close this DR; they obviously came from us, not the other way around.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)- The original source appears to be at palaeocritti.com, a site that collects such images. At http://www.palaeocritti.com/contact-info a notice is to be found: All the illustrations on this website are copyrighted. As a general rule, if you would like to use one of the images, contact the individual author for permission. Some of the illustrations have been released to Wikipedia under an "attribution required" Creative Commons License (i.e you are free to use them as long as proper acknowledgment to the author(s) is provided). This seems to be one of these uploads even if the connection between User:ArthurWeasley and User:NobuTamura appears to be confusing. The picture at http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurpictures/ig/Ankylosaur-Pictures/Minotaurasaurus.htm looks like a copyvio to me (file date is 26 July 2010). While I assume per AGF that this upload is ok, it would be perhaps helpful to get a confirmation through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is silly, User:ArthurWeasley and User:NobuTamura are the same person. He uploaded the image here himself, along with hundreds of other self made images. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- Common Good (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
orphaned personal picture, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now added source information. Please do not delete this file as previously requested. Thank you. TheCroqueMonsieur (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding source information, but I still have to Delete unless proof of license is shown. Modern publicity photos and photos on facebook are NOT usually public domain. The claimed copyright tag looks questionable. If the copyright holder (for something like this, usually either the original photographer, or the band if they have bought reproduction rights from the photographer) is authorizing distribution under public domain or a free licnese, I suggest you have them send OTRS confirmation; see Commons:OTRS for details. Thanks -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
because it is not in use anymore Guybrock (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete uploader request shortly after upload. -- Docu at 08:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The geometry of the structure is incorrect. See the file description page for details. Leyo 11:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, since not used anywhere. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- По ссылке содержится разрешение: «Разрешаю использовать представителям "Солидарности" и исключительно во благо "Солидарности" на условиях на условиях свободной лицензии CreativeCommons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)и по возможности с указанием авторства». http://photofile.ru/users/lenaswan/115249029/?page=2 Уточните, чем оно не устраивает? -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Хм, странно. Вчера я ее не заметил. Вопрос закрыт.--Agent001 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- : По ссылке содержится разрешение: «Разрешаю использовать представителям "Солидарности" и исключительно во благо "Солидарности" на условиях на условиях свободной лицензии CreativeCommons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)и по возможности с указанием авторства». http://photofile.name/users/lenaswan/115249029/?page=5 Уточните, чем оно не устраивает? -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- По ссылке содержится надпись: «Разрешаю использование фотографий из этого альбома на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/» http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/andrei-naliotov/album/32625?p=0 -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ясно, вопрос закрыт. Однако либо я ее не заметил, либо ее вчера не было.--Agent001 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- По ссылке внизу поста содержится надпись «Фотографии: drugoi This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.» Эту надпись автор фото (и владелец блога) добавил по моей просьбе специально для публикации на Commons Wikimedia. -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- По ссылке внизу поста содержится надпись «Фотографии: drugoi This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.» Эту надпись автор фото (и владелец блога) добавил по моей просьбе специально для публикации на Commons Wikimedia. -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- По ссылке внизу поста содержится надпись «Фотографии: drugoi This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.» Эту надпись автор фото (и владелец блога) добавил по моей просьбе специально для публикации на Commons Wikimedia. -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license information George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Lack of information and usage. Orphan picture. Dodd (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, orphan with no useful description; undistinguished photo of mystery location. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of band with no notability or article - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also inadiquately described and sourced, uncategorized for more than 2 years, and apparently conflicting copyright claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No permission. http://www.northerngateway.ca/terms-use -- Common Good (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
no description, no source, no author Tvabutzku1234 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
capture from TV. copyright vio. Ks aka 98 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete / 即時 Delete --みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Jamiebaillie.jpg Guy 10:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, and revert to higher resolution version. 117Avenue (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unused private photo of unknown person; no educational value. -- Kaganer (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: http://www.montanapictures.net/montana_small_towns.htm uses a version of this photo as the thumbnail for its Laurel slideshow. "All Photographs on this site are copyright © MontanaPictures.Net. All rights reserved." The site strongly implies that the photos are all taken by the same photographer and that he is not particularly fond of free distribution. See Montana Pictures FAQ #11.2 on the subject of "free credit". --Closeapple (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The image can't have an EXIF if it's GIF, can it? But the very fact that it's GIF (which requires dithering to 256 colors) is an indication that it wasn't derived with the originator's permission. (I can't see the slideshows because they require that I agree to an Adobe license first.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
b nbnbn bnbnhggh 89.235.213.243 15:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't read Japanese, so I can't assess the usefulness of the page. However the "reason" for deletion looks like nonsense in any language. Unless some reason for deletion is offered, Keep -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - speedy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed. Vandalism deletion request, thats the ja Commons:Community portal, linked on any page on the left side in the Navigation links. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
www.paparazo.com.br 186.208.200.1 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: speedy --moogsi (blah) 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed, nonsense. --Martin H. (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hoshikawa st.jpg Hama2222002 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: no reason given Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment "Welcome to "Wikimedia Commons Community Portal" - could someone who reads Japanese please take a look at this to see if it seems clearly within scope or not? Thanks, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: This is the Japanese language translation of Commons:Community portal. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Photograph of 3D artwork, the photographer has a copyright here, simply PD-old is not applicable. Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The same goes for:
- File:Tureen on stand william c codman 1910.JPG
- File:Takenouchi no sokune meets the dragon king of the sea 1879.JPG
- File:Head of tlaloc.JPG
- File:Figure of a young man from a funerary relief 4th bc.jpg
- File:Spanish Colonial Cabinet (c. 1685).jpg
- File:Mask - Mexico.jpg
- File:Kneeling Female Figure with Bowl (olumeye).jpg
- File:Shiva Nataraja.jpg
- File:Ceremonial mask peru 900 ad.JPG
- File:Female shrine figure with ritual pot and child late 19th.jpg
- File:William Story- Semiramis.JPG
- File:Barye - Turkish Horse.jpg
- All from the same uploader, no photographer is indicated, licensing for the photographic work is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted. Copyright violation. Prseumably, these photos of 3D artwork were simply taken from the museum website. No response by uploader. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
From a work published in Germany by author who died in 1942.[1] PD in the US but not in country of origin until 2012. Kelly (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Restored PD now. Yann (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright image from this site. No indication anywhere on site that it has been released into public domain. DAJF (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No source for work given at original Wikipedia page.[2] Kelly (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SIrtysha.jpg){kind=link}
- FOUND - The original version of the image, which is on the main Wikipedia page says the author is Sibiryak, and the source is "www.rmx.ru". ----DanTD (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- So who was the author of the image, and when and where was it initially published, and under what license? Kelly (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in the United Kingdom Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The sign is simple text except for the logo image at the bottom. I have added {{Trademark}} to the image page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is extremely simple. But the log isn't necessarily PD-ineligible from what I can see. Granted this all seems fickle and unnecessary nitpicking, but that's why fair use come into play. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The logo is neither de minimis or PD-ineligible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - PD-ineligible is not OK for this - Jcb (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Does not provide a clear illustration of a colonoscopy and is likely unusable. The only use that I'm aware of was a discussion on a talk page on English Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coeliac_disease&diff=405108846&oldid=402582965 Soap (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks to the uploader for doing an original "illustration", but I can't see that it would have any in scope usefulness. The "usage" in the en:Wikipedia talk page looks like it might have been just a joke or sarcasm. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful sarcasm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS email was received from copyright holder explicitly stating a license, despite a request to do so. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Henryk_Krzemiński_(1924-1983)_(po_prawej)_-_Prezes_Polskiego_Związku_Lekkiej_Atletyki,_Warszawa_1967.jpg
[edit]_(po_prawej)_-_Prezes_Polskiego_Zwi%C4%85zku_Lekkiej_Atletyki,_Warszawa_1967.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(po_prawej)_-_Prezes_Polskiego_Zwi%C4%85zku_Lekkiej_Atletyki,_Warszawa_1967.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1967 image sourced from a "family archive". Unfortunately, there is insufficient information as to the photographer to determine whether {{PD-Polish}} applies. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment More information is needed. What is meant by "family archive"? If, for example, the uploader's father was the photographer and the uploader inherited the photo after the father's death, they may license it as they wish. If it is photo by some unidentified person that they just happen to have a copy of, they have no rights to license without explicit consent of the original photographer/copyright holder. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi, By my opinion it press photo, I have other arguments. Regards Dedal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedal (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- What are your other arguments that it is actually a press photo? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sign design copyright unknown and Canadian Freedom of Panorama does not likely cover TCO (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Photos of government road signs containing simple traffic icons seem to be usually considered de-minimus where not explicity PD. Is there any reason to think that animal crossing traffic signs in Canada might be subject to copyright restrictions? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I want to keep the image. It serves a valuable purpose for me in an article. It's pretty. It hits multiple themes. It's the right image for the right species, in the right location. It's really very deft. And I went to a fair amount of work to get it, even engaging the naturalist in a phone call. That said a reviewer at FAC disagreed with it. And really I flagged the concern myself, when the subtleties of FoP were engaged. Personally I think this is SOOO fair use, that it almost doesn't need fair use justification. We are showing the thing in a different setting, not making signs etc. I considered demin, but the sign is a big part of the focus here. Granted it is not only the graphical design, but it's not like a took a picture of a car and there just happened to be a stray sign behind. The sign is the focus of the landscape (not the car or the road although all are elements). We had a big discussion at FAC about this (see Painted turtle section). Also, had a big Village Pump discussion a day ago (see that). I would love to have this issue resolved, preserve the photo, use it in my article and not sweat this thing. That said, I need it thrashed out better. What I am hearing is "Wiki" is even more strict than the law and I'm getting an object. (Well probably my fault too for bein honest, but I was regarding FoP not covering it.) If we feel differently that FOP DOES cover it (for instance because we show the entire sign in a landscape, rather than just duplicating the design or croppint to only the design), then that would cover me also. Help me! Help me put down the pistol at my temple (kidding). TCO (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- And I want to keep it, but I don't think simplicity of the design will be enough demin. It is a pretty design and sort of iconic and I have seen other types. So, I doubt that we can get by (maybe if purely textual and on a standard diamond, we could.) I think FOP and showing the pole and all might be a better hat to hang on, but then I want some backup from people saying they think it really is and why (the as written wiki FoP for Canada is pretty strict sounding, although I can't find that stuff in the actual statute, you'd have to get case law or some written interpretation. TCO (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have invited W:User:Fasach Nua to comment. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is about "free" media (media that can be used by anyone for any purposes in compliance with most laws of countries). "Fair use" and aesthetics do not really factor into the concept of "free" here. The sign would be a "graphic work" in terms of Commonwealth FoP (UK), thus it would not qualify for it. The sign is too much the focus of the photograph and would not qualify for de minimis either. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: if its not free it doesn't go on commons, I think this is more than just a simple government road signs containing simple traffic icons Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: In case it wasn't clear, I vote to kill.TCO (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Please wait before wieldging the axe. I want to look into de minimus at a more thorough level. Another person has brought up an argument on TVP, that de minimus may apply. I need to research this. Basically his point first was that de minumus is not simply incidental use. Second, that the black turtle iteslf was very small in the photo, not to just look at the diamond, but the black turtle, Third that while the sign (as an entity) was key to the photo, the specific design was not. So this is NOT a photo showing "wow what a cool design", but really that is somewhat incidental (could have been another design or words). This is to differentiate it from taking a photo of a sculpture to experience the art work itself in a 2 D format, say. This said, the WP policy for US would help me here, but at least what WP says for Canada seems more strict. Anyhow, he mentions cheking it out, so would like to research and come back.TCO (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No copyrightable work, no originality at all, very simple design, government work, etc. pp. What a silly idea to delete this file. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As mentioned at Commons:Village_pump#Need_copyright_advice_on_a_photo_of_a_Canadian_traffic_sign_.28turtle_crossing_in_Vancouver.29, I'm highly skeptical that de minimis applies in this case, due to the prominence of the turtle design. It is certainly creative enough to have a "creative spark", despite its simplicity. And government works are not generally public domain in Canada. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does have a pretty look to it, showing the segments on the shell, even. I suppose even if I got a release from the signmaker for my photo that would not be good enough, right? Like if he wanted to keep sign-making rights?TCO (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you obtained a license statement from the copyright holder (whoever that might be - either the sign designer or their employer) then there would be no issue. It wouldn't prevent them from continuing to make the sign. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I actually got started to deal with the signmaker. The question is would just releasing the right to the design for this photo or derivatives be enough? Or does he have to "free" the design so even other signmakers or the like can go copy that design? I sorta figured what the Commons answer would be, so I didn't even bother asking him. I don't think it's worth getting his whole design freed to the world, just so we can have that image, where the design is just an element. I mean at that point, I almost don't want him to give away all his rights, even if he would (just for us to have a photo that was non-infriniging). IOW is a release just for the photo sufficient, or does he need to "free" his whole design to the world? TCO (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you obtained a license statement from the copyright holder (whoever that might be - either the sign designer or their employer) then there would be no issue. It wouldn't prevent them from continuing to make the sign. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The turtle is not the focus of the photo, the sign is, the road and surroundings are pretty important too, as they show the natural setting and the crossing path. If you remove "crossing season" or "slow" or the surroundings the photo would lose most of its value, same goes if you substitute them with something else. While if you substitute the turtle graphic with the word "Turtles", making the sign say "Slow, Turtles crossing season", it won't lose a bit of its value. Moreover, a cropped image with the turtle graphic alone is useless for us, unlike typical copyvios like a sculpture with some grass and trees around it, or a poster with a big portion of a wall. Instead, it can be compared with a city panorama, a nightly shot of Paris for example, that includes the Eiffel tower. The tower is prominent, and it's important as a part of the city, and if you remove it you may not be able to recognize the city, but it's not the focus of the photo, Paris is. Hence it's OK on the grounds of de minimis, and this photo shouldn't be any different. -- Orionist ★ talk 08:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any reason to indicate that the image of the turtle is a central part of the image (and that's the only potentially copyrightable part, the sign is simple factual text and a simple geometric shape.) Therefore, the question is not "Is the sign a central part of the image?" (which itself is debatable), but "Is the image of the turtle a critical part of the image?" To put it another way, would the image have the same effect if the image of the turtle had not been placed on the sign, and the sign contained only text? I would say that the answer is a pretty clear "yes". Given this, the inclusion of the turtle image is incidental and falls under de minimis. Seraphimblade (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that the meaning of the sign is altered by the removal of the turtle (you can no longer even tell what kind of crossing it is or why it's unusual). Replacing it by the word TURTLE would not damage the meaning (but of course a Photoshopped version would not be authentic). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that it would be so easily replaceable with text is exactly why it is de minimis. De minimis doesn't require that the piece of the photo be totally meaningless to the photo, only that it not be the main or sole purpose of taking the photo. If you were taking a photograph to show a massive amount of litter in the street, taking out all the Starbucks cups and Coke cans might keep you from knowing what the photo was about, but each individual cup and can would still be de minimis since it is their aggregate, not each individually, that is the focus, and their aggregate (a pile of litter) is not copyrightable even though each individual piece of it is. On the other hand, a photo designed to solely capture a single Coke can would likely fall afoul. This image is meant to show the roadway and sign, not to showcase the turtle image, so the turtle's image cannot render the whole image on the wrong side of free. Seraphimblade (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that the meaning of the sign is altered by the removal of the turtle (you can no longer even tell what kind of crossing it is or why it's unusual). Replacing it by the word TURTLE would not damage the meaning (but of course a Photoshopped version would not be authentic). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Andreas - obeying copyright law is important, but going to these extremes actually will weaken our efforts to follow the law as uploaders will laugh at more moderate efforts. Smallbones (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments I gave on the Village Pump thread. I think this is de minimis, or if not, fair use of a sort where it is a complete defense, i.e. I can't think of a use of the photo itself which would be a problem. We often do the "commercial use" test... could you put this image on a postcard and sell it? In this case, I think that would be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wait. Following input on TVP, I'm going to try to track down the turtle design holder and get a non object on the presense within the image. Maybe this helps tip the balance of comfort to keeping the image. TCO (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, road signs aren't artworks. --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - in another ticket about road signs, see here, the Canadian government states its only condition: "However, the Ministry would like to remind you to use caution when capturing these images to help ensure not only your safety, but the safety of others. If you're driving to a location and need to pull over to take photos, please stop at rest areas off the highway or ensure you're stopped on the shoulder as close as possible to the ditch in an area visible to other motorists and during good weather conditions." - Jcb (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.173.207 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, useful anatomical illustration in use in multiple projects. Commons is not censored; mere nudity is not pornography. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.173.207 14:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy kept, please. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 14:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, abusive repeat identical deletion requests from anon -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.161.125 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. No it isn't. Keep reccomend speedy (someone else's turn to close this one). -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- As above. It is not porn. It is encyclopedic illustration showing scrotum. Keep Mappy (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - Per above –Krinkletalk 04:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The person in the image was born 1925, in this photo he is older 15 years, so the claim that the photographer died 70 years ago is unlikely true. Furthermore it looks like the work is signed by its author, so the source information is incomplete. Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, more information is needed to determine if image is PD. (Eg, author? Where was it taken/first published, so what country's copyright law is relevent here?) If no info showing reason why it is PD is provided, Delete Infrogmation (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. As the actor died, I'll upload a fair use version on wiki portuguese. Thanks. Auréola (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Gif file. A new ogv and better file for its purpose has been uploaded. Joost 99 (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is currently used for decorative purposes at nl:Wikipedia:Geologiecafé and en:User talk:RifeIdeas. --AVRS (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The new file is apparently File:Earth seen from the sun.ogv. --AVRS (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- If wanted I can upload another revolving earth ogv format. Joost 99 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a simple gif can be better in some cases than an ogv video. The ogv file is substantially more elaborate than this gif and thus not a duplicate; both files can be useful. MKFI (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I realize the new file being different is confusing (this mew animation better fit the purpose of showing a solstice, hence the change). I switched to ogv because this was recommended at your Helpdesk (gif can be annoying because it can not be stopped). I will have to replace the gif anyway, the axis of the earth is not correctly tilted. So I can either upload a new gif, or make a ogv revolving earth, or do both. I leave the deleting or not to you ;-) Joost 99 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
All files by Hiko0927
[edit]- File:Ford-Lio-Ho-Company.jpg
- File:Mazda3-20-MZR-CD-Diesel-Engine.jpg（proved to be copyvio: [3]）
- File:1975-Mazda-818-B.jpg
- File:1975-Mazda-818-A.jpg
- File:Mazda-RX-792P.JPG
- File:Mazda-MX-R01.jpg
- File:2010-Mazda-Premacy04.jpg
- File:2010-Mazda-Premacy03.jpg
- File:2010-Mazda-Premacy02.jpg
- File:2010-Mazda-Premacy01.jpg
- File:2000-Mazda-Titan-4th-Generation.jpg
- File:Mazda-titan-5th-generation.jpg
- File:Ford-Festiva-2nd-Generation-Sedan04.jpg
- File:Ford-Festiva-2nd-Generation-Sedan03.jpg
- File:2000-Ford-Festiva-sedan02.jpg
- File:2000-Ford-Festiva-sedan01.jpg
According to the user's Contributions or its Log, it can be inferred that the user's files always violate copyright. And files above: all files (except files nominated for speedy deletion) uploaded by the user must also violate copyright. Sources of all files (including files which were proved to be copyright violation and nominated for speedy deletion) uploaded by the user are {{own}}, which is of course not true. -TTTNIS (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Sir,
- I would like to request you reinstating all files you deleted from my upload. The reason "it can be inferred that the user's files always violate copyright" is very ridiculous. I can promise following photos were took by myself:
- And following photos were provided by my overseas freinds via Mazda's fan clubs, and they allowed me to upload these photos:
- Thank you for your attention and help. Hiko0927 (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your proving yourself to be a liar, for File:2000-Mazda-Titan-4th-Generation.jpg, which you promised is your file, is copyvio. Check [4] (Search URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/2000-Mazda-Titan-4th-Generation.jpg), and you would be able to find a file which is the same as the file (and that was uploaded over 2 years ago).--TTTNIS (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I cant repeat the gazopa search by TTTNIS, but I would also say that File:2000-Mazda-Titan-4th-Generation.jpg (uploader 12-2010) can come from e.g. http://rajalori.blogspot.com/2009/11/mazda-titan-truck-series.html (11-2009). The only very ridiculous is this false claims and that you upload other peoples (oversea friends) work as own work and claim licenses that they not gave you permission too: They allowed to upload their photos, they not allowed you to grant the whole world the right to use the photo commercially as long as Hiko0927 is attributed. Delete all files by this uploader, I dont have any tollerance for such false claims. --Martin H. (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Adri92 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - I didn't find duplicates - Jcb (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- could be him --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep German politician. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
photograph of copyrighted sign; freedom of panorama does not apply because this is not a permanent installation Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Source image at en Wikipedia had no given source. Kelly (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - could be self-made, the perspective is too ugly to be something professional - Jcb (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. The image is not an exact copy of the original low resolution raster image. Basically I copied the idea from that image and made a svg image. Cryonic07 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabriel_Zapata.jpg Kevinmarck (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion request by uploader. Why? Porque? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
foto falsa
- If the person on the photo is not called Gabriel Zapata, perhaps it just needs to be renamed? Laurent (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is not used in any article or reference. It have only promotional purposes. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the person on the photo is not called Gabriel Zapata, perhaps it just needs to be renamed? Laurent (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, and not used on other wikis. Out of scope. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Hm, anyone familiar with the Heavy Metal band scene in Brazil to say if either the band or venue have some notability? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No free NASA photo, pictures from Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center are unfortunately copyrighted! Ras67 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, not a NASA work. While I presume an official NASA photographer might make photos of US Astronauts in Russia, in this case the photo credit clearly reads "Photo credit: Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center". Delete unless it can be shown to be free licensed for some other reason and info and template are fixed accordingly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted (or, copyrightholder insist their right at least). [5] Ks aka 98 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)/Ks aka 98 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete / 即時 Delete --みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The design is very simple. Might be {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Vadim sp87
[edit]
2 unused photos and a logo of a musical band with no notability as decided here en:Bobs Don't Bite - no foreseeable use, out of scope --Santosga (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Lebanon MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
also
- File:Georg von Thaer, Hindenburg2.JPG, created 1928.
User Wistula (= Mark Nikolaus von Nathusius) placed his name mistakenly in the field "author". This is a scan from an anonymous work in private property, created about 1938, not published. Thus not PD under US or local (German) law. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Group DR. The uploader could not provide further informations. See User_talk:Wistula#Urheber_.2B_Todesdatum_unbekannt and following discussions. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep anonymous old photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- German law requires author's death more than 70 years ago, US law even 120 years after creation for unpublished works. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken about German law; US law does not matter here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- What part in §§ 64-66 should be mistaken? The photographers of these images even could still live today. We are far away from 70 years pma. 70 years after publication does not fit for privatly owned copies. 70 years after creation applies only for works created after July 1995. Purely academic: Medias on Commons have to be free under local law and US law, of course. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- For unpublished works, copyright expires 70 years after creation: "das Urheberrecht ... erlischt jedoch bereits siebzig Jahre nach der Schaffung des Werkes, wenn das Werk innerhalb dieser Frist nicht veröffentlicht worden ist." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, again. This new part (70 years after creation, if anonymous and unpublished) in German copyright law only applies to works created before July 1995. What brings us back again to Template:Anonymous-EU and its further informations. Cross-DR-Roundabout. :-) The tricky thing in this law is, that's what the article on de-WP says about anonymous works: you often cannot get a clear PD status through §66. It's useless. 70 years pma is the gold standard. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- For unpublished works, copyright expires 70 years after creation: "das Urheberrecht ... erlischt jedoch bereits siebzig Jahre nach der Schaffung des Werkes, wenn das Werk innerhalb dieser Frist nicht veröffentlicht worden ist." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- What part in §§ 64-66 should be mistaken? The photographers of these images even could still live today. We are far away from 70 years pma. 70 years after publication does not fit for privatly owned copies. 70 years after creation applies only for works created after July 1995. Purely academic: Medias on Commons have to be free under local law and US law, of course. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken about German law; US law does not matter here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- German law requires author's death more than 70 years ago, US law even 120 years after creation for unpublished works. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - correctly licensed - Jcb (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
also:
Not enough info about the authors' birth and death dates to verify PD status. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commentgroup DR. The uploader could not provide further informations. See User_talk:Wistula#Urheber_.2B_Todesdatum_unbekannt and following discussions. Local, German law allows PD for anonymous works published more 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - written by de:Minna Cauer, dead 1922. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. I withdrawed these two DR's, of course, and apologize for not enough having researched the assumed author's name. File:Avn, kritik 9a.JPG even shows the name quiet clearly. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
2 ongoing DRs:
now separated out of this group:
- File:WvN, court case, in court2.JPG (1924, photo by: Wolter)
- File:WvN, newspaper portrait a.JPG (1924, photo by: Roemer & Co)
- Keep - anonymous works; the second one is probably by the Okoli Gesellschaft Rudolf Roemer & Co in Stadtilm: "Photo Wolter" also sounds like a company. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lets assume that Wolter is a company and that for both images copyrights were company owned. Where is the difference? Is there a hint that they do not exist any more and do not have heirs who hold the rights today? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- For photos that were published more than 70 years ago without the name of a personal author, it does not matter whether those companies exist or not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both are not anonymous. Photographers and/or company as copyright holders are clearly named. § 10 explicitly does not make a difference between them regarding pma. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the publishing company owns the copyright, but it expires 70 years after publication; "Roemer & Co" is clearly a company, it does not matter whether or not they were in Stadtilm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- These images are published, they are not anonymous (copyright claims are clearly given). Why should the publication date instead of pma be underlying? If the copyrights where clearly and exclusively company owned what even is not known, and if the company would have been closed and if no heirs would exist, than these images could be free. But there is not even a hint for these conditions. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly not familiar with the basics of copyright: it does not matter when the company was closed. Read up a bit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask when the company (that you only guess to be the copyright holder) was closed. But that's already a pure academic discourse. Back to the basics: there is a copyright claim, valid 70 years pma. See below. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly not familiar with the basics of copyright: it does not matter when the company was closed. Read up a bit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- These images are published, they are not anonymous (copyright claims are clearly given). Why should the publication date instead of pma be underlying? If the copyrights where clearly and exclusively company owned what even is not known, and if the company would have been closed and if no heirs would exist, than these images could be free. But there is not even a hint for these conditions. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the publishing company owns the copyright, but it expires 70 years after publication; "Roemer & Co" is clearly a company, it does not matter whether or not they were in Stadtilm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both are not anonymous. Photographers and/or company as copyright holders are clearly named. § 10 explicitly does not make a difference between them regarding pma. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- For photos that were published more than 70 years ago without the name of a personal author, it does not matter whether those companies exist or not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lets assume that Wolter is a company and that for both images copyrights were company owned. Where is the difference? Is there a hint that they do not exist any more and do not have heirs who hold the rights today? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The Stadtilm based company is your google hit, but what will a producer of de:Okulare and de:Vergrößerungsgeräte have to do with a photo in a newspaper? The given information can be a starting point for more research. Is it a company with more then one photographer or is Roemer the photograher, who is Roemer, etc. The same applies to the second, "Wolter" does not "sound like a company name" at all, Wolter is a name and Wolter is not anonymous. The combination of the newspaper and that name is a starting point to find out the identity: Maybe in one issue of the newspaper he is identified? Maybe in the newspapers archive there is a link to the identity or maybe Wolter is simply an employee of the newspaper. --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is still very common that photographers also have a shop selling cameras; a century ago some also manufactured photographic equipment; googling shows some connection of the Nathusius family to Stadtilm. But even if this photo would not be from Rudolf Roemer & Co, "Roemer & Co" is obviously a company, and this photo was published without author disclosure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Let's say "Roemer & Co" is a company. A studio perhaps. Let's say the photographer transmitted his rights to this company. Or the compnay name just represents the photographers under one roof like agencies often do. Whatever. Fact is: there is a clear copyright claim "Phot. Roemer & Co" on this image. It is thus not an anonymous work and there is no exception from §64 (= 70 years pma is needed to have it free). --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Martina. Your idea, Pieter, that the photographer is anonymous is based only on your personal knowledge about the image. The only thing you know about the image is that you not know anything and that you not found out more, thats not much. There are many sources that will tell us if it was a company with one photographer or many (e.g. documents of tax-, labor- or local authority, photographic reference collections) and based on that it will be possible to find out the authors death (parish or civil registers). Only repeating the obvious and doing a google search is not reasonable, the requirement for an author disclosure is not that the information is 'disclosed to Pieter' or 'publicly visible on the internet in general and Google in particular'. The requirement is that the author disclosed their identity anywhere, in written or in spoken, within the rest of their life or by their heirs 70 years thereafter. It is not possible to search all possible sources, of course it is not, but it is not reasonable to take the internet as the only replacement reference (as long as their is no experts voice to quote about this photo or e.g. at least photographs of this person) and to fully rely on this non-information. --Martin H. (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - the Wolter picture - Kept. - the Roemer & Co picture - if it's credited to a company and we have no indications of the contrary, let's use the information we have, on the other hand, Wolter doesn't sound like a company to me - Jcb (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Not enough information to verify PD status. Authors were named in this newspaper (see de:Kreuzzeitung). -- Martina Nolte (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- CommentLocal German law would allow PD for anonymous works published more 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1915 masthead of a newspaper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Plus half of the newspaper's first side articles. What is your point? --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Created about 1920. No informations about possible publication (with or without the author's identity). Thus: Not enough information for PD status. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - old anonymous photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
also for
- File:Fabrik Schleusingen.JPG
- File:Glüsig Kapelle.JPG
- File:Wilhelm Engelhard von Nathusius d.J. - Foto, Uniform 1.JPG
- File:Georg von thaer foto braun.JPG
- File:Georg von Thaer and Paul von Hindenburg.JPG
- File:Annemarie von nathusius, Foto Sessel, Unterschrift.JPG
No information about the author's identity and death date before or in 1940, so that 70 years pma status is not verified. No (anonymous) publication known. (Local, German law would allow PD for anonymous works published more than 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995). US law gives PD status to unpublished anonymous works that have never been registered in the US (independent from their origin) 120 years after creation. Thus PD as of 1. January 2011 only if they have been created before 1891. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) -- Martina Nolte (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Comment Group DR. The uploader could not provide further informations. See User_talk:Wistula#Urheber_.2B_Todesdatum_unbekannt and following discussions. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Very improbable that there is someone who would claim copyright for the picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is (in)probabilty of prosecution a real criterion on Commons? --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Very improbable that there is someone who would claim copyright for the picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep old anonymous photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
File:Anschluss in Tirol 1938.JPEG has been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anschluss in Tirol 1938.JPEG) -- Common Good (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted image is only the source of the upper left image (1 of 6). Somebody could crop or replace that part. I will leave the DR open for now, to give it some time. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
По ссылке не обнаружено разрешение на использование файла по свободной лицензии Agent001 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Не возражаю -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- А сейчас оно там есть. --AVRS (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Файл не представляет ни эстетической, ни информационной ценности. Можно удалить как "мусор". -- Ivan Simochkin (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
