Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_in_Tiradentes_-_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is no NASA material. Thus is cannot be published under a NASA licence. "Venera 13" was a Soviet Space probe. High Contrast (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit is given to NASA at several sources because the NSSDC is currently the organization that holds the images. Please read the NSSDC Gallery Use Policy --Xession (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
| Copied from High Contrast User Talk Page --Xession (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
Be advised that I have provided permission links for all of these images. Please read it before submitting the deletion request!
Clearly all of these images come from this source and clearly they are in the public domain. Please remove the deletion request promptly. --Xession (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly all of these images come from the Soviet Union. The NASA cannot put them in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment I'd wish to keep those images. Although other DR with the same file was discussed here (for example). Xession, you seem to be dedicated contributer. So, to get final clarification, you could write an email to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask if this public domain licence applies to the Venera-images, too. Maybe an error occured and non-NASA-files are not included - as they are normally. Tell us the feedback and if it is positive, we'll store that mail here and the images will be kept for all time. I think this is the best way to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've received a response from Dr. Edwin V. Bell, who is currently the curator of the NSSDC Photo Gallery. Below is a transcript of our interaction:
Transcript between User:Xession (hereby known as Zachary L. Doyle) and Dr. Edwin V. Bell on January 6, 2011 Mr. Doyle --- These images were scanned from data that is currently archived at the NSSDC. All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain. These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press). These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC).
We have tried to carefully avoid putting copyrighted information on our site or to do so only with the permission of the copyright holder and with proper credit. There are some images available from the NSSDC web site (such as in the photo gallery) that are not part of the archived data here or for which copyrights are noted or possible, but these are not, to my knowledge, among them.
Ed Bell
On 2011-01-06 1:13 PM, Zachary Doyle wrote:Hello Dr. Bell,
I have a question regarding the use status of a few images in the NSSDC photo gallery. The Venera images (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface) are of course from the USSR and I was unsure if your image use policy, (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use) which states that all images are in the public domain, in fact covered the use of these images from the USSR as well. This is to settle a dispute (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg) at Wikimedia Commons. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you, Zachary L. Doyle
--
Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
Voice: +1-301-286-1187 Mail: Mail Code 690.1
Fax: +1-301-286-1635 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: ed.bell@nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771
- In accordance to his remarks, the images from Venera including all other images on the NSSDC that are not explicitly labeled as copyrighted works, are within the public domain. Again, I am aware that PD-NASA isn't exactly the most accurate licensing label for these images as they were acquired by Soviet spacecraft. However, there seems to be no other more accurate label as they do come from NASA and are in the public domain as a result. --Xession (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Final evidence for these files being in the public domain has been brought by Email from the curator of the related NASA image gallery => OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- What the NSSDC writes is their own business. These images clearly say their original source, so the NSSDC, NASA or Mabutu can stand aside - but their claim has a strong point. These images are not works of art, and they don't fit any of sixteen types of "intellectual property" privatized in the current Russian Civil Code. These images were captured by un-manned probes and processed in a depersonalized manner; there is no author (in the sense of article 1228) - all we know is the name of a Soviet agency that processed and released them. It is up to Commons to assert its own house rule on such a case. In absence of a specific house rule, keep all. NVO (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, in precious discussions this was understood differently. Anyway, we got the best result for Commons with a valid way. --High Contrast (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- So in essence, such an image would have never and currently is not under Russian copyright? If this is true, then I fail to see the need in the OTRS formality as it would be in the public domain with the NSSDC certifying the image as being so. Asking for permission for something that is said to be in the public domain does not seem logical to me. --Xession (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is what NVO is thinking. I would not vouch for this. I'd suggest to take the best and easiest way: sending this email to OTRS. --High Contrast (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect. What I think is that wikimedia sites, including commons, should not heed so-called laws invented by failed states like Russia or North Korea, the "laws" designed to be broken rather than followed. Instead, commons should work out its own no-nonsense approach. This includes gray areas like images which have no author - but which, from an American legal POV, 'might not be free. NVO (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Russia is a failed state? Nevertheless, I know about what you were writing, but it is definately better to send the existing email to OTRS and there will never be any discussions about these specific images. Think evectively. To rely on any gray areas is not the best way - especially not in this issue when we have a more elegant possibility. --High Contrast (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect. What I think is that wikimedia sites, including commons, should not heed so-called laws invented by failed states like Russia or North Korea, the "laws" designed to be broken rather than followed. Instead, commons should work out its own no-nonsense approach. This includes gray areas like images which have no author - but which, from an American legal POV, 'might not be free. NVO (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
See discussion page. Geogene (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
My arguments for deletion, copy/pasted from the discussion page:
- The relevant authorities and laws for usage rights to Soviet works are those of the Russian Federation, not the webmaster of a NASA website that happens to display those works.
- The only claim that NASA seems to have to those images is that the Soviets gave them copies of the data in an exchange, and that they host them on their servers.
- NSSDC can't proclaim that images on their website are in the public domain if they don't own the rights to those images in the first place.
- The NSSDC webpage asserts that all imagery in their database is in the public domain; but their email said that they don't know that for sure.
- Therefore, the NSSDC website's PD claim is not reliable.
- The e-mail from NASA contradicts itself. The first paragraph asserts that they didn't archive "proprietary" materials out, so if it's in their archive, it's in public domain, "by definition". (Whose definition?) The second paragraph then asserts that some of the pictures on their website might be copyrighted. He doesn't think these are but he isn't sure.
- This implies that the author of the email may not understand the meanings of "public domain", "proprietary", and "copyright" in the sense we are using them.
- The precautionary principle applies here. The burden of proof is always on the person uploading the file or arguing to keep it, not the person arguing for deletion.
- These images cannot be kept unless we get confirmation from the relevant Russian government authorities that they are PD.Geogene (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- This has been discussed numerous times in the past. I contacted numerous people aside from Dr. Bell to confirm his statements. It shall be noted once again, that NASA and the NSSDC are an archival database that stores *only* publicly distributable content. There are no exceptions to this curatorial objective they uphold. This deletion request is unnecessary and should be dismissed based on past discussion as it has clearly been resolved. -Xession (talk)
- It stores content that NASA believed to be publicly distributable in the US at the time of their acquisition, which was decades ago. Russian copyright law has changed a number of times, in 1993, in 1996, and in 2008. The final say is not with NASA, but with the country of origin. Note that even SOHO imagery, which is a joint NASA/ESA project, and which has images on the NSSDC website, is known to be generally unusable because of the prohibition on commercial re-use on the project's website. Are there some other discussions on this you can link to? Geogene (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Add by edit: I'd also point out that Dr. Bell makes a distinction between the images on the website and the data in his archive. In his last sentence he says that some images on the website may be copyrighted. Geogene (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I had another look around the NSSDC website, and I see that they now are hosting images identical to two images that on Wikipedia are considered fair use. For example, the Yutu rover here [1] is a WP fair use image here [2], and a Chang'e 3 lander image here [3] is cropped a little differently than the WP Fair Use image here: [4]. In all cases these copyrights belong to either China's space program or their state television. Apparently NSSDC went to Google, downloaded some images off the net, and put them up. That must be what happened because there is no official communication between NASA and the Chinese, it's actually against US law for them to ask formal permission or otherwise have a data exchange. But I guess WP can throw out the fair use images and replace them with those the NSSDC files and slap a NASA-PD tag on them, right? Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yutu.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chang%27e3.jpg){kind=link}
Apparently ok, as before -FASTILY 10:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is no NASA material. Thus is cannot be published under a NASA licence. "Venera 13" was a Soviet Space probe. High Contrast (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit is given to NASA at several sources because the NSSDC is currently the organization that holds the images. Please read the NSSDC Gallery Use Policy --Xession (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
| Copied from High Contrast User Talk Page --Xession (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
Be advised that I have provided permission links for all of these images. Please read it before submitting the deletion request!
Clearly all of these images come from this source and clearly they are in the public domain. Please remove the deletion request promptly. --Xession (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly all of these images come from the Soviet Union. The NASA cannot put them in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment I'd wish to keep those images. Although other DR with the same file was discussed here (for example). Xession, you seem to be dedicated contributer. So, to get final clarification, you could write an email to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask if this public domain licence applies to the Venera-images, too. Maybe an error occured and non-NASA-files are not included - as they are normally. Tell us the feedback and if it is positive, we'll store that mail here and the images will be kept for all time. I think this is the best way to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've received a response from Dr. Edwin V. Bell, who is currently the curator of the NSSDC Photo Gallery. Below is a transcript of our interaction:
Transcript between User:Xession (hereby known as Zachary L. Doyle) and Dr. Edwin V. Bell on January 6, 2011 Mr. Doyle --- These images were scanned from data that is currently archived at the NSSDC. All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain. These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press). These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC).
We have tried to carefully avoid putting copyrighted information on our site or to do so only with the permission of the copyright holder and with proper credit. There are some images available from the NSSDC web site (such as in the photo gallery) that are not part of the archived data here or for which copyrights are noted or possible, but these are not, to my knowledge, among them.
Ed Bell
On 2011-01-06 1:13 PM, Zachary Doyle wrote:Hello Dr. Bell,
I have a question regarding the use status of a few images in the NSSDC photo gallery. The Venera images (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface) are of course from the USSR and I was unsure if your image use policy, (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use) which states that all images are in the public domain, in fact covered the use of these images from the USSR as well. This is to settle a dispute (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg) at Wikimedia Commons. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you, Zachary L. Doyle
--
Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
Voice: +1-301-286-1187 Mail: Mail Code 690.1
Fax: +1-301-286-1635 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: ed.bell@nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771
- In accordance to his remarks, the images from Venera including all other images on the NSSDC that are not explicitly labeled as copyrighted works, are within the public domain. Again, I am aware that PD-NASA isn't exactly the most accurate licensing label for these images as they were acquired by Soviet spacecraft. However, there seems to be no other more accurate label as they do come from NASA and are in the public domain as a result. --Xession (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Final evidence for these files being in the public domain has been brought by Email from the curator of the related NASA image gallery => OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is no NASA material. Thus is cannot be published under a NASA licence. "Venera 13" was a Soviet Space probe. High Contrast (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit is given to NASA at several sources because the NSSDC is currently the organization that holds the images. Please read the NSSDC Gallery Use Policy --Xession (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
| Copied from High Contrast User Talk Page --Xession (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
Be advised that I have provided permission links for all of these images. Please read it before submitting the deletion request!
Clearly all of these images come from this source and clearly they are in the public domain. Please remove the deletion request promptly. --Xession (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly all of these images come from the Soviet Union. The NASA cannot put them in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment I'd wish to keep those images. Although other DR with the same file was discussed here (for example). Xession, you seem to be dedicated contributer. So, to get final clarification, you could write an email to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask if this public domain licence applies to the Venera-images, too. Maybe an error occured and non-NASA-files are not included - as they are normally. Tell us the feedback and if it is positive, we'll store that mail here and the images will be kept for all time. I think this is the best way to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've received a response from Dr. Edwin V. Bell, who is currently the curator of the NSSDC Photo Gallery. Below is a transcript of our interaction:
Transcript between User:Xession (hereby known as Zachary L. Doyle) and Dr. Edwin V. Bell on January 6, 2011 Mr. Doyle --- These images were scanned from data that is currently archived at the NSSDC. All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain. These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press). These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC).
We have tried to carefully avoid putting copyrighted information on our site or to do so only with the permission of the copyright holder and with proper credit. There are some images available from the NSSDC web site (such as in the photo gallery) that are not part of the archived data here or for which copyrights are noted or possible, but these are not, to my knowledge, among them.
Ed Bell
On 2011-01-06 1:13 PM, Zachary Doyle wrote:Hello Dr. Bell,
I have a question regarding the use status of a few images in the NSSDC photo gallery. The Venera images (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface) are of course from the USSR and I was unsure if your image use policy, (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use) which states that all images are in the public domain, in fact covered the use of these images from the USSR as well. This is to settle a dispute (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg) at Wikimedia Commons. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you, Zachary L. Doyle
--
Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
Voice: +1-301-286-1187 Mail: Mail Code 690.1
Fax: +1-301-286-1635 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: ed.bell@nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771
- In accordance to his remarks, the images from Venera including all other images on the NSSDC that are not explicitly labeled as copyrighted works, are within the public domain. Again, I am aware that PD-NASA isn't exactly the most accurate licensing label for these images as they were acquired by Soviet spacecraft. However, there seems to be no other more accurate label as they do come from NASA and are in the public domain as a result. --Xession (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Final evidence for these files being in the public domain has been brought by Email from the curator of the related NASA image gallery => OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is no NASA material. Thus is cannot be published under a NASA licence. "Venera 9" and "Venera 10" were Soviet Space probes. High Contrast (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit is given to NASA at several sources because the NSSDC is currently the organization that holds the images. Please read the NSSDC Gallery Use Policy --Xession (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
| Copied from High Contrast User Talk Page --Xession (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
Be advised that I have provided permission links for all of these images. Please read it before submitting the deletion request!
Clearly all of these images come from this source and clearly they are in the public domain. Please remove the deletion request promptly. --Xession (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly all of these images come from the Soviet Union. The NASA cannot put them in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment I'd wish to keep those images. Although other DR with the same file was discussed here (for example). Xession, you seem to be dedicated contributer. So, to get final clarification, you could write an email to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask if this public domain licence applies to the Venera-images, too. Maybe an error occured and non-NASA-files are not included - as they are normally. Tell us the feedback and if it is positive, we'll store that mail here and the images will be kept for all time. I think this is the best way to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've received a response from Dr. Edwin V. Bell, who is currently the curator of the NSSDC Photo Gallery. Below is a transcript of our interaction:
Transcript between User:Xession (hereby known as Zachary L. Doyle) and Dr. Edwin V. Bell on January 6, 2011 Mr. Doyle --- These images were scanned from data that is currently archived at the NSSDC. All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain. These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press). These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC).
We have tried to carefully avoid putting copyrighted information on our site or to do so only with the permission of the copyright holder and with proper credit. There are some images available from the NSSDC web site (such as in the photo gallery) that are not part of the archived data here or for which copyrights are noted or possible, but these are not, to my knowledge, among them.
Ed Bell
On 2011-01-06 1:13 PM, Zachary Doyle wrote:Hello Dr. Bell,
I have a question regarding the use status of a few images in the NSSDC photo gallery. The Venera images (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface) are of course from the USSR and I was unsure if your image use policy, (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use) which states that all images are in the public domain, in fact covered the use of these images from the USSR as well. This is to settle a dispute (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg) at Wikimedia Commons. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you, Zachary L. Doyle
--
Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
Voice: +1-301-286-1187 Mail: Mail Code 690.1
Fax: +1-301-286-1635 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: ed.bell@nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771
- In accordance to his remarks, the images from Venera including all other images on the NSSDC that are not explicitly labeled as copyrighted works, are within the public domain. Again, I am aware that PD-NASA isn't exactly the most accurate licensing label for these images as they were acquired by Soviet spacecraft. However, there seems to be no other more accurate label as they do come from NASA and are in the public domain as a result. --Xession (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Final evidence for these files being in the public domain has been brought by Email from the curator of the related NASA image gallery => OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is no NASA material. Thus is cannot be published under a NASA licence. "Venera 14" was a Soviet Space probe. High Contrast (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit is given to NASA at several sources because the NSSDC is currently the organization that holds the images. Please read the NSSDC Gallery Use Policy --Xession (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
| Copied from High Contrast User Talk Page --Xession (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
Be advised that I have provided permission links for all of these images. Please read it before submitting the deletion request!
Clearly all of these images come from this source and clearly they are in the public domain. Please remove the deletion request promptly. --Xession (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly all of these images come from the Soviet Union. The NASA cannot put them in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment I'd wish to keep those images. Although other DR with the same file was discussed here (for example). Xession, you seem to be dedicated contributer. So, to get final clarification, you could write an email to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask if this public domain licence applies to the Venera-images, too. Maybe an error occured and non-NASA-files are not included - as they are normally. Tell us the feedback and if it is positive, we'll store that mail here and the images will be kept for all time. I think this is the best way to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've received a response from Dr. Edwin V. Bell, who is currently the curator of the NSSDC Photo Gallery. Below is a transcript of our interaction:
Transcript between User:Xession (hereby known as Zachary L. Doyle) and Dr. Edwin V. Bell on January 6, 2011 Mr. Doyle --- These images were scanned from data that is currently archived at the NSSDC. All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain. These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press). These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC).
We have tried to carefully avoid putting copyrighted information on our site or to do so only with the permission of the copyright holder and with proper credit. There are some images available from the NSSDC web site (such as in the photo gallery) that are not part of the archived data here or for which copyrights are noted or possible, but these are not, to my knowledge, among them.
Ed Bell
On 2011-01-06 1:13 PM, Zachary Doyle wrote:Hello Dr. Bell,
I have a question regarding the use status of a few images in the NSSDC photo gallery. The Venera images (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html#surface) are of course from the USSR and I was unsure if your image use policy, (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use) which states that all images are in the public domain, in fact covered the use of these images from the USSR as well. This is to settle a dispute (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg) at Wikimedia Commons. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you, Zachary L. Doyle
--
Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
Voice: +1-301-286-1187 Mail: Mail Code 690.1
Fax: +1-301-286-1635 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: ed.bell@nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771
- In accordance to his remarks, the images from Venera including all other images on the NSSDC that are not explicitly labeled as copyrighted works, are within the public domain. Again, I am aware that PD-NASA isn't exactly the most accurate licensing label for these images as they were acquired by Soviet spacecraft. However, there seems to be no other more accurate label as they do come from NASA and are in the public domain as a result. --Xession (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Final evidence for these files being in the public domain has been brought by Email from the curator of the related NASA image gallery => OTRS-permission. --High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded the wrong file. Please delete. Fibermeister (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The license was removed with the comment his image is from the mirriam-webster visual dictionary, and it is doubtful that it can be used on wikimedia, see history of the file description. I agree, possible copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The graph "data" was from the dictonary, not the "image." This graph is entirely created by me. There is no copyright on dates and common "facts." It was also deleted from an article without an acceptable rationale. Restoration is requested. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed. Thanks for that information, I will restore the license template. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This file displays false information with a chart that claims Judaism is older than Hinduism. JavonFromEarth (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: No valid reason for deletion. Create a better depiction if you like. --Achim (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Wrong information is given in this image file from the Merriam Webster's visual dictionary(2007). According to many scholars Hinduism is the oldest living religion on Earth dating back to 2300 BCE or possibly much earlier and traceable to the Indus valley civilization. While prophet Abraham who was the founder of Judaism was born on 2150 BCE. Thus Hinduism is the oldest existing religion on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:4062:4e16:cdf4::790b:ef05 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment FWIW, some anthropologists argue that worship of the Earth Mother far predates earliest Hinduism per se, going back to the paleolithic era.-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. I am unconvinced that this is not COM:DW of the similar image in Merriam Webster. Not used, Questionable claims; no evident in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
sorry but it is quite unlikely that you are the copyright owner of this satelite image, so please give correct source Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. From google maps, of course the google terms of use (which are incompatible with Commons:Licensing) and COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery are the relevant reading. --Martin H. (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
typo. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Press photo: http://www.atarde.com.br/arquivos/2008/10/56361.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the uploader's other contributions, unlikely that this tiny photo with no EXIF data belongs to him. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Private photo, per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad photo montage based on an unsourced original photography. Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. sfu (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, no tulips 4028mdk09 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
_in_Tiradentes_-_Brazil.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_Tiradentes_-_Brazil.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
People pictures in geography categories. Eduardo P (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
_in_Tiradentes_-_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Private photo, per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
_in_Tiradentes_-_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
Lacking author information. Kelly (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous 1897 photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - keep it, it's a photograph from Sommerfelds time in Göttingen. The photographer is unknown and copyright has expired. --Furfur (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Promotional movie; no educational value. -- Kaganer (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- And substandard product, too. Delete. NVO (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (book cover of non-notable author, see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Nicola casini), possible copyvio of cover photo Ianezz (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Possible copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No source Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader named pwnzs, look no further, speedy. NVO (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
a person without notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- same opinion, delete--Motopark (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. "own work, all rights reserved"? Trycatch (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, as per this quote from COMMONS:SCOPE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." Logan Talk Contributions 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep; the en.WP copy that's scheduled for deletion is used at w:User:Shuffdog. As per the above quote, it's in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange image editing on an unidentified painting, not usefull and therefore out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
+File:Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke Hw moltke 01.png (low quality duplicate/extract)
Public domain in the U.S. maybe as stated in the Library of Congress Bain collection http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2004004877/ (I will add the appropriate sources etc to the image description hereafter), but not public domain in Germany. Photo by Emil Bieber, died 1962, rights owner is Studio Niermann. Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, overexposured image. Better quality available. Also have doubts about the copyright as source link does not work. Elekhh (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (unused textual logo of http://www.unistrani.com with no clear educational value, possible copyvio) Ianezz (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (unused graphic logo of http://www.unistrani.com with no clear educational value, possible copyvio) Ianezz (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality, bad name, unused Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably not own work by the uploader (as stated), not used anywhere. Leyo 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
derivative work Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in Argentina Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No "SPECIMEN" or "보기" text. Guideline 3.C.2 violation – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added both. Better now? -- sarang♥사랑 08:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my request. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think PD-textlogo applies here. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Geagea (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
license not granted TPAC (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. by User:Polarlys (no license). Geagea (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No source given by uploader at en Wikipedia. Kelly (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope 78.55.56.254 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Is this a notable person? GeorgHH • talk 10:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Subject = uploader. It is the uploader's only action on Commons. Personal, out of scope. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work based on a movie poster. Sreejith K (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a photo of an auto-rickshaw painted with pictures of various Bollywood stars, that is what the flickr page says. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree. My point is that the original picture of various Bollywood stars is a movie poster which is quite evident in the costumes and the pose of the actors involved. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete photographer is not the original artwork creator, so its a copyvio...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree. My point is that the original picture of various Bollywood stars is a movie poster which is quite evident in the costumes and the pose of the actors involved. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a modern, presumably copyrighted, statue situated in Greece. As per Commons:FOP, we cannot assume freedom of panorama here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Info Correct link: Commons:FOP#Greece --Leyo 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per "A monument to Leonidas was erected at Thermopylae by king Paul of Greece in 1955" at en:Leonidas I#Leonidas_Monument. Paul of Greece died 6 March 1964, making 70 years pma works of his copyrighted through the end of 2034. — Jeff G. ツ 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be precise, the king was of course not the artist whose copyright we are talking about. I don't know who the artist was and when they died, but of course it can't have been more than 70 years ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
CD cover. Looks like copyright violation. ErikvanB (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, delete--Motopark (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Some CoA of an unidentified place, looks strange however, something went wrong with this drawing. Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Upload by someone with no other contributions; this image is a common one in chatrooms on the internet, making this dubious (Tineye has 210 hits); uploaded separately at w:File:Stick wall.gif by another user also claiming to be self created. Given that a timestamp on the image dates it to 2003, it's doubtful that the creator would wait until mid 2006 to upload it to commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Fabiolanes (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio's Captain-tucker (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Haereticus (talk · contribs). Uploaded from different web sites. No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio's Captain-tucker (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Out of scope}}. More importance given to the lady in the front. There are enough pictures in Category:India Gate which can be used instead. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this one is different. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Private Photo - Out of SCOPE. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The author is definately not Don P.Mitchell. The Soviet Venera space probes were unmanned. High Contrast (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - see here, not free - Jcb (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
a bad vectorization (apparently fully automatic) of File:Wiki-sball.png which is clearly superior. A correct svg drawing would be good and useful - but not such a one. minor fact: the file size is about ten fold. Saibo (Δ) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Leyo 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Improper license: Copyrighted material Burhan Ahmed (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- From the file page: “I have requested the permission from the owner of the software for pasting screeshot here.” If the screenshot contains only work by the owner of the software, the permission is needed (e.g. in OTRS). --AVRS (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't delete this screenshot ! “I have requested the permission from the owner of the software for pasting screeshot here.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohaib ather (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - it's not sufficient to request permission, it must also be granted - Jcb (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a notable person GeorgHH • talk 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Amazon offers a mp3 download, many google hits, but perhaps self promotion... --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The template states that "image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text", but that's not exactly true. I think it does meet the threshold of originality. deerstop. 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hrm, if you can hardly read it, there may be some individuality.--141.84.69.20 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - fonts are not copyrightable, unimportant how artistic they may be - Jcb (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Saying that this consits only of "simple geometric shapes and/or text" is a bit of a stretch. Quibik (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pattern went beyond the threshold of originality for sure. File doesn't consist only simple geometric shapes. JDavid (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Copyrighted logo. --Alpertron (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This is, it says, the logo for a Linux version that has since changed its name and has only a WP:EN redirect. So? Is it in scope? Also, although the language is open source, logos of such languages are usually not freely licensed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- English: It is used in it:Ebuntu.--AVRS (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Esperanto: Ĝi estas uzata en it:Ebuntu.--AVRS (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- Logo of free software, in use, has EV --George Chernilevsky talk 10:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- George, I think you miss the point. In many cases, including, for example, Wikipedia and Commons, the product is freely licensed, but the logos are not. This is true of Ubuntu (see the bottom of the page) and most other open source projects. OpenGEU, the new name of Ebuntu, explicitly prohibits commercial use of its logo. Unless someone can show -- from an archive, for example -- that the Ebuntu logo was freely licensed in a way that neither its predecessor, its successor, nor other similar products are, we must not keep this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - file is changing - current version would be PD-textlogo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
evidence needed that this is really the new logo. History comments show image has been manipulated --JPense (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- this is a fake. The image has been manipuleted. This is a retouched image. Lery007 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
this is a fake. The image has been manipuleted. This is a retouched image.
On constate très clairement que l'image a été retouchée. Le clocher de l'église a été coupé et collé à droite. On peut très bien voir la différence de blanc à l'endroit initial du clocher.
Lery007 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Permission to "adapt" trademark, if it ever existed, does not extend to manipulations that may be deemed insulting, or merely a prank. NVO (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. fake George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
and other non-text logo uploads by Dovendjur (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions/inconsistent and/or missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - I checked two of them and didn't find duplicates - Jcb (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + no license. --ƏXPLICIT 10:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The file has been deleted due to wrong licensing of the content. A new version has been uploaded with an acceptable approach and the new file has been added to all Wiki project articles those had the deleted version. Thank you. TawsifSalam (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted Logo of Banladesh Chhatra dal Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is just text in a green/red circle, so it's not elligible for protection. Kept --DieBuche (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused logo. Unlikely to be used on any of the sister projects. GrapedApe (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope to me --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment We need more information on the image page. I think that would make it educational. As it stands now it's not, but deletion is not a way forward. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted by Fastily.
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
moved from speedy: simple enough for PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with PD-textlogo for the text portion. What about the graphical elements? BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - the graphical elements are simple geometric shapes - Jcb (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
the character is probably copyrighted, no source for the original, no permission Yann (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Against, it's image was repainted by me, and copyrighting only of original character, but not this SVG-version.SmesharikiAreTheBest (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)- Good morning! Sorry, I was a rather tired yesterday and I had writen a very ungrammatically. I'm against, because, in my opinion, these problems is not important. Firstly, the source of PNG-edition is shown on description page, and I can try to get permission by "World of Smeshariki". But is it necessary? When I do this image, vectorizer worked a very bad and I was forced to repaint a big part of image. Finally, is the character of cartoon copyrighted, because the moose very like the duck, may be, I'll change the description? Excuse me, I'm studing the English and writing with a lot of mistakes. SmesharikiAreTheBest (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK sorry, there is a source for the original, but the rest of my argument still hold. I won't delete this myself, and I am requesting opinions from others. Yann (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Summary
[edit]
I'm nominated image for speedy deletion with reason by uploader's request - isn't necessary. SmesharikiAreTheBest (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a Spanish company [5] with no notability or article in es or other wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of employees of a Spanish company [6] with no notability or article in es or other wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Screengrab of a German silent movie. PD-US does not apply. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I think the movie is in public domain since its author is likely to be dead during WWI : is death date is unknown but he stopped making films in 1915 ([7]). I don't know if the picture can be kept. LittleTony87 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not. Mime Misu was born Misu Rosescu on January 21, 1888 in Botosani, Romania.[8] That's all the information the IMDB has on him. But there is this article on him that quotes 1921 articles[9]in English via Google Translate that talks about Mr. Misu and the Misugraph Film Company. One Romanian book calls him Mişu Rosescu, which may be a careless respelling or a more accurate version of his original name. Having looked through Google Books, there's nothing on either of the names we know after 1921.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, this is not sufficient to assume the move is PD. As this is a German movie, it needs to be PD in Germany. German copyright law requires, that _all_ people creating this movie must have been dead for at least 70 years. This includes camera men etc.. I don't have a complete list of people working on this movie, but unless we know for sure that they are all dead, we cannot assume, that the movie is PD in Germany. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Camera men don't matter. In the EU, w:Copyright law of the European Union says "For films and other audiovisual works, the seventy year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work (Art. 2, D. 93/98/EEC)." In this case Mime Misu is the only person who matters; he is the director and the only person listed with writing credits, and no music is known.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, this is not sufficient to assume the move is PD. As this is a German movie, it needs to be PD in Germany. German copyright law requires, that _all_ people creating this movie must have been dead for at least 70 years. This includes camera men etc.. I don't have a complete list of people working on this movie, but unless we know for sure that they are all dead, we cannot assume, that the movie is PD in Germany. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not. Mime Misu was born Misu Rosescu on January 21, 1888 in Botosani, Romania.[8] That's all the information the IMDB has on him. But there is this article on him that quotes 1921 articles[9]in English via Google Translate that talks about Mr. Misu and the Misugraph Film Company. One Romanian book calls him Mişu Rosescu, which may be a careless respelling or a more accurate version of his original name. Having looked through Google Books, there's nothing on either of the names we know after 1921.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep if death date is unknown, it must be really long ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Country of origin is Germany. According to de:In Nacht und Eis this movied was directed by de:Mime Misu who died in 1953. Therefore this is not PD in its country of origin until January 1, 2024. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't knew Mime Mise death date when I uploaded this : all my researsh tended to prove that he died during World War I since his last film was dated 1915. If he died in 1953, all is changed ; so delete. LittleTony87 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
German advertisement for a German silent movie. PD-US does not apply. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, I think the movie is in public domain since its author is likely to be dead during WWI : is death date is unknown but he stopped making films in 1915 ([10]). I don't know if the picture can be kept. LittleTony87 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it not PD-EU-Anonymous? I see no reason for the advertisement of a movie to necessarily be a derivative work of the movie, and I see no signature on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright holder (at the time of display) is the "Continental Kunstfilm" company. Its address is printed on top of the poster. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If the only identified author is Continental Kunstfilm, then it's PD-EU-Anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright holder (at the time of display) is the "Continental Kunstfilm" company. Its address is printed on top of the poster. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep old, anonymous advertisement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Image is outdated and harmful to the subject of the photo (Chanel Iman) as it depicts someone she currently has a restraining order from (man in background). The fact that this image is the number one photo of her being spread around the internet due to its use on Wikipedia is causing her emotional distress. Is it fair to say she's protected under the rights of publicity? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States) Please contact me if necessary: jessica@chaneliman.com 71.249.130.223 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it is not fair to say she is protected under the rights of publicity; as you can see from the article you linked to, those only include commercial exploitation. The image being outdated is irrelevant; it is well within our ambit to store images of notable people at all stages of their life. I will let others discuss the emotional distress side; she is not notable enough, I don't think, that we'd want to keep it for the historical value of the restraining order alone, but right now every picture we have of her is in use at Wikipedia, meaning this can't easily be replaced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per Prosfilaes, and I have written to the nominator directly to see if we can come to a solution. Tabercil (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Update: the nominator is checking to see if she can get a suitable image with Commons-friendly licensing. If we can get one, I'll most likely upload it overtop of this one. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Not that I'm trying to be a cynic or imply bad faith on the part of the nominator, but do we really just assume that Iman has a restraining order against this (blurry, seemingly random) person? And even if we do, does it matter? Restraining orders are notoriously easy to get and don't always mean much. I would hate to think Iman or her people just don't like the idea that this person is in a free photo of her and we end up removing (borderline censorship?) a great photo of her because of it. Mbinebri (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If we had many images of her, I might delete, but this is the best of only three. Publicity rights mean that she can prevent someone from publishing the image over a caption such as, "I use Smith's Skin Cream", but, as a general rule, anyone in a public place may be photographed in the USA, and that is especially true of public figures, including models. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Because is not perfect Martingali (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- that's no reason for deletion --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- If Martingali is not Marta Jordán Ordiales, then OTRS permission needed her. Geagea (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 6#File:Iitm.maingate.logo.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is this not in India? COM:FOP#India says there is FOP. --MGA73 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dur, yes it is. Keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dur, yes it is.
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
