Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
wrong picture Chefdonjr (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted on user request abf «Cabale!» 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Original en Wikipedia uploader states on his user page he lives in Romania, but photo is of a crime scene in Arizona. Image also lacks any camera metadata that might establish original authorship. Kelly (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Unlikely own work. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)- Delete. We just had the same problem on the English Wikipedia with a similar upload from this user. KimChee (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Unambiguous lift from Flickr - see [1] Tabercil (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Dubious copyright status, sourced to User:Kevorkmail who is known to have been a serial copyvio uploader. Small web-resolution photo, unlikely to be self-made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.brasilturismo.com/rj/teresopolis/lazer.php Ednei amaral (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.odiariodeteresopolis.com.br/leitura_noticias.asp?IdNoticia=13091 Ednei amaral (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://teresopolisemdebate.blogspot.com/ Ednei amaral (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
With the background image, this is a derivative work and non-free Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep it's a useful image without the background. Someone else can probably do a much better job at cropping out the copyrighted pieces and still looking good, but I think my edit works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I'm fine with this solution, however, it would mean we have to delete the content of the original upload (GFDL is still satisfied). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept per above. Original version was deleted. Trycatch (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is one of seven files uploaded by User:Jack11111. The other six have all been tagged as copyright violations by me. I feel confident that this is also a copyright violation, however, I have been unable to find the source. NiciVampireHeart 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, it's a photo from the 1997 Survivor Series (vastly contradicting the 2002 date on many levels). A Google search gives this. Not exactly the same source (mine is watermarked), but it's still higher quality and makes this more than likely a copyvio. -- Oakster 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio uploader. Thanks to Oakster for the find, that finding is much more evidence than my evidence: search wrld-michaels03-1 on google images, I found it elsewhere under that filename. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Very poor svg drawing, not used anywhere, rather out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ianezz (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Because this file must be located not separately, but as updated version of previous file. Maasaak (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused duplicate of File:Tartu Annelinn1.JPG --Ianezz (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. exact duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Superseded by svg file and not in use. Dobe (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. deleted as poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no description, bad quality, no encyclopedic value, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete a quite unsuccessful attempt to provide an illustraton of es:Luz mala (a south-american legend about evil floating light?). --Ianezz (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Pointless trialsanderrors (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused low quality private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic, not used in personal page. Ciaurlec (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete, not needed, don't care :) Matthewedwards (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused image of unidentifiable something, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused image of unidentifiable something, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Article MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty gallery. Geagea (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No description, source, or license information MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Very likely copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. — Tanvir • 14:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The photo was provided by (Source) Sara Paxton herself. What else is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.119.200 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The author(photographer) of the photo owns the copyright to the image. You declared that the license is ineligible for copyright but this is not correct. The author of the photo needs to be given and permission from the author needs to be submitted to OTRS.MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:ABF. as no license. Regarding to the source provided please see OTRS. Geagea (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Per Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom; "Coin designs are copyrighted by the Royal Mint.[14] So although publishing images of coins is not prohibited by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c.45) (Its section 19 applies only to "imitation British coins", which are defined as "any thing which resembles a British coin in shape, size and the substance of which it is made."), such images can be published only with the consent of the Royal Mint."
This image can therefore only be held on Commons with the express consent of the Royal Mint, which according to their website at www.royalmint.com, must be made in writing direct to them.
I withdraw this DR. I misinterpreted policy in relation to this, and have noted the error on the Village Pump. Please close as an immediate keep, per my serious PEBKAC issue.
BarkingFish (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
BarkingFish (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom any copyright in this coin expired 50 years after minting, or in 1999.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Geagea (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
According to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/utilities/copyright.html images from that site fall under Crown Copyright. This license is false. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
photo by photographer Mario Testino, no permissions Sasha Krotov (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Obvious case. "Source: The web"... ha! Speedy delete. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is a free screenshot. GeorgHH • talk 23:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A screenshot from a 1997 TV show. Trycatch (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
File is used without permission outside wikimedia and wikipedia. --H.A. (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Many many thousands of images are used elsewhere - in fact, if it's worth anything it will be copied somewhere. Images in use in wikipedia are automatically reused by countless wikipedia mirrors and spinoffs... so what? This is not a reason to delete. NVO (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep They don't need permission, just attribution, according to the license you gave. If they have the image without attribution, well, that really does suck. Some of them with a little nudging will fix that, others, well. But that is one of the risks you took when uploading it anywhere on the net, and you did give us and everyone else an unlimited license to use the picture provided we attribute you, which we are doing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a lot of other media related to Category:Flow charts, not need this, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ianezz (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
moved to speedy: I am not sure what could be copyrighted here. The stars? No. The white strip of black background? No. The form of the shield? Hmm... Yann (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy: seems too simple to be copyrighted... Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep.Agree. Geagea (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:0405.Annabell 002.jpg. No need to keep a version, which is a bit more sharp. That sharpness is unnecessary, doesn't increase the quality of the main image. — Tanvir • 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blemished face for no valid reason, out of scope. --Leyo 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Leyo. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- (P.S.: Same thing with File:Jane - Rio - 2006-2.jpg and File:59120064 German whores in backstage, freshing up their Make-Up, Berlin 2001-2.JPG.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've nominated both of those for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Ho nascosto il viso della persona nell'immagine in quanto definita "prostituta". Poi ho sostituito la foto modificata nelle varie wikipedia. Ora vedo che le decine di sostituzioni fatte sono state cancellate da Leyo: [2][3][4][5][6][7] etc. etc..
La ragione per cui ho modificato l'immagine e sostituito la foto nelle voci è quello di salvaguardare la privacy della persona fotografata. Ve l'immaginate se il figlio di questa persona scoprisse che la madre è una prostituta leggendo wikipedia ?
Le motivazioni di Leyo Tanvir non le conosco e non riesco ad immaginarle.
[I hid the face of the person portrayed in this picture because it defined as "prostitute". Then I replaced the edited photo in various wikipedia. Now I see that dozens of substitutions made were deleted from Leyo: [8][9][10][11][12][13] etc. etc..
The reason why I changed the image and replaced the photo in the caption is to safeguard the privacy of the person photographed. Can you imagine if this person's son discovers that his mother is a prostitute reading wikipedia?
The reasons for Leyo and Tanvir do not know and I can not imagine.] --Ligabo (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)- You are tiring. You might want to explain us, why your IP address has been blocked in it.wikipedia… --Leyo 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- OT. Non vedo cosa abbia a che fare con l'argomento che stiamo discutendo in questa pagina. In ogni caso, non posso rispondere alla tua arguta domanda. Io stesso non ho ancora capito il motivo del mio blocco su it.wiki. Se la cosa ti interessa, puoi chiedere informazioni in it.wiki, dove non faticherai a trovare soddisfazione alla tua curiosità. Se riesci a capirlo, fallo sapere anche a me.
[OT. I do not see what he has to do with the topic we are discussing on this page. In any case, I can not answer your question witty. I myself have not yet figured out why I lock on it.wiki. If this interests you, you can request information it.wiki, where there's sure to find satisfaction to your curiosity. If you can know, tell me too.] --Ligabo (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- OT. Non vedo cosa abbia a che fare con l'argomento che stiamo discutendo in questa pagina. In ogni caso, non posso rispondere alla tua arguta domanda. Io stesso non ho ancora capito il motivo del mio blocco su it.wiki. Se la cosa ti interessa, puoi chiedere informazioni in it.wiki, dove non faticherai a trovare soddisfazione alla tua curiosità. Se riesci a capirlo, fallo sapere anche a me.
- You are tiring. You might want to explain us, why your IP address has been blocked in it.wikipedia… --Leyo 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is completely inappropriate to disfigure the images of recognizable human beings. You didn't effectively hide the face at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The identity of the subject was not effectively hidden. Complete blurring of the face would help, but this does not. 99of9 (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by Sanfranman59 for "out of scope". Túrelio (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- One of the depicted people seems to have consented to the deletion, File talk:Krieglstein-obama rally.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This file is cropped from 18th photo on http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/20467 and this site is marked by copyright symbol © on the main page. Dmitry89 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Source at en Wikipedia was deleted as unsourced. Kelly (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep too simple to be copyrighted --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
svg version available (please start bot after deletion, to replace with svg version) Flor!an (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Wizardman 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is our well established policy to keep pre-existing raster files after a vector file is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kept and I also made the {{Vector version available}} template more prominent so people can actually see that we have a vector version of the file. odder (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Given the uploader's history of claiming Getty Images photo as self-made work, no reason to believe the source information for this image is correct. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, inappropriate licensing. Bellayet (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
image from sportal.rs which indicate : Copyright © 2007 Agencija Sportal. Sva prava zadržana. TaraO (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader designed the depicted aircraft. — Jeff G. ツ 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Irrelevant to the license of the image. If uploader created this work, and there's no evidence he did not, then he can upload under whatever license he wants. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be the "Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material" type of Copyfraud. We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that sources would be preferred, but I'm not convinced this is a case of claiming copyright ownership of public domain material. Unless this specific blueprint originated in the public domain, any creative decisions used in creating this graphic, even if it resulted in a faithful representation of the aircraft, should allow for the creation of a new copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[14] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing. — Jeff G. ツ 05:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part where he tagged it as "Own work". Again, if the author created the image himself, and he states below that is is his and drawn by hand, even if he relied on outside sources and drawings as a basis, the creation is his own work. Quite simple. Look, if you think this situation is a problem Commons-wide, you need to file something akin to a Wikipedia Request for Comment. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- We are missing the "complete citation" and the "primary source" for derivative works such as this one claimed as own work without sources. I do think this situation is a problem Commons-wide (especially with drawings of advanced technology conveyances like airplanes and submarines), and that's why Commons:Village pump#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources" referenced below began with "RFC:" and included "I request comment" in my first post over four days ago[15]. — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part where he tagged it as "Own work". Again, if the author created the image himself, and he states below that is is his and drawn by hand, even if he relied on outside sources and drawings as a basis, the creation is his own work. Quite simple. Look, if you think this situation is a problem Commons-wide, you need to file something akin to a Wikipedia Request for Comment. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[14] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing. — Jeff G. ツ 05:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that sources would be preferred, but I'm not convinced this is a case of claiming copyright ownership of public domain material. Unless this specific blueprint originated in the public domain, any creative decisions used in creating this graphic, even if it resulted in a faithful representation of the aircraft, should allow for the creation of a new copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be the "Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material" type of Copyfraud. We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your deletion request. Of course the design of the JAS 39 Gripen aircraft is not my work, I suppose, that it was designed by a group of engineers of the Swedish SAAB Company. I stated only, that the svg drawing itself is my own work. I constructed by means of the AutoCAD software, according to other drawings available on the web, then it was saved in wmf format and loaded int an Inkscape, where further refinements were made. If you state that it is sombody's else work, please show me the "original" drawing. If you could send me your e-mail adress, I can send the original *.dwg or *.dxf file if you can manage with it.Kaboldy (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC) copied from this edit for wider distribution. — Jeff G. ツ 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's possible the nominator has a misunderstanding of copyright law. The designers of the original aircraft do not have any copyright in that design (they are uncopyrightable in the first place), so an SVG like this is *not* a derivative work, nor even close. Whoever drew the SVG owns the copyright in this and can license it as they wish, which appears to be the case here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that the aircraft designers and draftspeople at Saab AB (or their employer) do not hold copyright to blueprints and technical specifications they create, just like any other original content creator? — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. But unless this was made directly from those plans, that copyright has nothing to do with this one. Separate expressions of the same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean "Sure, they hold copyright", not "Sure, they do not hold copyright", right? — Jeff G. ツ 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they hold copyright. But only as to the drawing style and choices made in that particular representation of the design on paper. The finished product contains none of that, and is not copyrightable. This is pretty basic stuff when it comes to copyright; see this description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean "Sure, they hold copyright", not "Sure, they do not hold copyright", right? — Jeff G. ツ 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. But unless this was made directly from those plans, that copyright has nothing to do with this one. Separate expressions of the same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that the aircraft designers and draftspeople at Saab AB (or their employer) do not hold copyright to blueprints and technical specifications they create, just like any other original content creator? — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, the plane is not copyrighted. The drawings used to construct the plane certainly are. But unless our uploader actually copied those drawings, he has not infringed them. The classic case to point on this is the Phoenix creation of their copy of the IBM bios for the PC. Because Phoenix was careful to use programmers who had never seen the IBM bios in their creation, it did not infringe on IBM's version even though the tight specifications required the two to be very similar. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader designed the depicted equipment. — Jeff G. ツ 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Björn Huber contributed a lot of such technical drawings, created by himself. I transferred them to Commons due to their quality. When the visual design of a tank is copyrighted, we had to delete all images of cars, tanks, planes, trains, …. Please see Commons:Derivative works. --Polarlys (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- To make myself more clear: "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[16] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing. — Jeff G. ツ 06:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It says "self-created", explicitly. That is the source statement, in the original upload log. By all means fix the page to put that in the Information template, but don't nominate for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The author states here that it is his own work, and each image is hand drawn. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume that it is his own work. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- To make myself more clear: "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[16] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing. — Jeff G. ツ 06:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Irrelevant to the license of the image. If uploader created this work, and there's no evidence he did not, then he can upload under whatever license he wants. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. :Read the Watermark. Björn Huber 2006. Uploadlog Zeichner: Björn Huber! Original uploader was B. Huber at de.wikipedia--Sonaz (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- We need sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment to all: please see Commons:Village pump#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Mr. Hubert explained the process of creating similar files (he even got better over time) several times on his talk page on German wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:B._Huber#Zeichnungen_-_Bf_109): He uses original building instructions, material from magazines and books (photos of different planes/tanks, technical describitions, close-ups (have you seen the rivets on some of his planes?). Why, what is his motivation? Well, he said a lot of similar drawings inaccurate. So he starts from scratch (I can’t translate it, but he measures the parts, uses converstion factors and so on.) If there is a way to create a free drawing of such equipment then he is using it at its best. Please do not confuse this user with the ones who scan such drawings or trace unfree files. --Polarlys (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The designer of the equipment has no copyright whatsoever in that design (since it is not copyrightable, meaning there is no copyright), and this is obviously not a derivative work (of that, anyways). By every indication, this is an original work which can be licensed by the author. The only way we should delete is to find another, *graphical* work of which it is derivative. We assume good faith on "own work" uploads and I see no evidence whatsoever to the contrary here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you in that case, but I have to point out that we had to delete a lot of much simpler drawings in the past since they were own work in the meaning of I traced this svg from a copyrighted print. --Polarlys (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is one example of a derivative work, depending on how similar the end result is to the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you in that case, but I have to point out that we had to delete a lot of much simpler drawings in the past since they were own work in the meaning of I traced this svg from a copyrighted print. --Polarlys (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that the tank designers and draftspeople at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co KG (or their employer) do not hold copyright to blueprints and technical specifications they create, just like any other original content creator? — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, as a graphical work, which does not extend to the object being designed. Do you think this was a copy made directly using those plans? If not, this is not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't derivatives of derivatives still derivatives? — Jeff G. ツ 06:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point that the finished product is not a derivative of the blueprints. The final dimensions are facts, and contains none of the copyrightable expression in the blueprints. And then no other work is a derivative of the finished product. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't derivatives of derivatives still derivatives? — Jeff G. ツ 06:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, as a graphical work, which does not extend to the object being designed. Do you think this was a copy made directly using those plans? If not, this is not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that the tank designers and draftspeople at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co KG (or their employer) do not hold copyright to blueprints and technical specifications they create, just like any other original content creator? — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is B. Huber himself speaking!
I can assure all of you that my drawings are completely my own work, i.e. every line and every rivet or stroke of brush. My work began with some megalomania of mine as i wanted to improve especially the standard of aircraft drawings freely available on the internet. Most of my elder drawings impressively illustrate that i failed to reach this goal quite impressively; but things went on now over time, i learned a lot and will improve my elder drawings in the future as i finally reached a satisfying standard:
The drawing of the Leopard 2 A4 is quite old and inaccurate - but it is my drawing, and i can prove this fact if anybody wants me to do so. I hope to find the time to make a much better drawing of this very interesting modern tank as soon as the most important projects of mine on Wikipedia (Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and Messerschmitt Bf 109) are finished.
Best regards:
B. Huber (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:JAS39_Gripen.svg Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
non-trivial (abstracting) work by (probably) another person depicted: the model of the submarine. The photographer seems to have been in a museum on that day. @The uploader/photographer: Did you only photograph it or did you also construct the model? Of course, if the model is PD - eg. if the person who created the model did it during his duties and was a US government employee - this photo would be also okay. --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC) @uploader and just for info: Commons:Derivative works is the policy page explaining this. --Saibo (Δ) 12:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, as the uploader appears to have a loose grasp on copyright law (see my user talk page). — Jeff G. ツ 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
_Engine_cutout_r_TCE.jpg)
- Dismiss for the lack of rationale. What form of art, or any other types of banned information, is there? Banned by whom (which jurisdiction)? What makes it different from the rest of Category:Models? Or from the rest of Category:Submarines? NVO (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Village pump#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checked the link, - nothing but a restatement of your private feud with Mike. Taking it here was pointy but pointless. NVO (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Village pump#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources. — Jeff G. ツ 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's a sculpture, and pictures of the sculpture are derivative works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, the the object would be considered a sculpture, so would have copyright. Unless there is FOP for indoor museum displays in the country where this photograph is taken, the photo would be considered a derivative work, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one cared to invent FOP for "indoor museum exhibits" in general. The concept applies to works of art and other protected intellectual property, not any museum object. But if the consensus of the asylum decides that scale models are indeed works of art, so be it. If this DR goes to where it's heading now, house rules must be amended to reflect it. NVO (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since when has copyright been interested in art? Everything I've read, judges have successfully dodged any responsibility for judging things to be art or not, and copyright has been provided for some very non-artistic things. In this case, this is as copyrightable as any doll house; what is shown, what is not shown, the design of the little bits, it's all copyrightable. It was carefully and creatively made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- The country of origin does not use the concept of copyright, and the complete body of court decisions (checked the database a week ago) is exactly four. Four cases that were actually resolved, all because these were political trials brought during local elections (these must be resolved, unlike true civil cases that are normally settled out-of-court). If American laws allow anyone to copyright someone else's things, it's great but irrelevant to the subject. NVO (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since it doesn't list the country of origin, if it came down to that, I'd use the worst of France, the US, the UK, Mexico and the Ivory Coast, since that should about cover it. If this was done in Russia, then all those Soviet era court cases are still precedent. If there are only four cases, then we must look at how copyright law is treated internationally, and assume that local law follows the same general twists and turns.
- If you're referring to someone else's things as to the submarine, then long-standing laws world-round have let people copyright other people! Portrait artists have long got copyright for their paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- The country of origin does not use the concept of copyright, and the complete body of court decisions (checked the database a week ago) is exactly four. Four cases that were actually resolved, all because these were political trials brought during local elections (these must be resolved, unlike true civil cases that are normally settled out-of-court). If American laws allow anyone to copyright someone else's things, it's great but irrelevant to the subject. NVO (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since when has copyright been interested in art? Everything I've read, judges have successfully dodged any responsibility for judging things to be art or not, and copyright has been provided for some very non-artistic things. In this case, this is as copyrightable as any doll house; what is shown, what is not shown, the design of the little bits, it's all copyrightable. It was carefully and creatively made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one cared to invent FOP for "indoor museum exhibits" in general. The concept applies to works of art and other protected intellectual property, not any museum object. But if the consensus of the asylum decides that scale models are indeed works of art, so be it. If this DR goes to where it's heading now, house rules must be amended to reflect it. NVO (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note to the deleting admin. Please provide explicit rationale for deletion: is it because models of submarines are sculptures? is it because it was taken indoors? or, perhaps, because the laws of some other country allow some else to copyright the thing? Thank you for setting the precedent, NVO (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete This is a hard one. With deference to NVO's comment, I'm not ready to be the closing Admin. There are several issues here:
- The copyright in the photograph itself. I assume that we are all OK with the fact that it is the uploader's own work and therefore not an issue.
- FOP. I assume this is in a museum (see the link above to another photo of the uploader's.) Of the major countries, only the UK, I think, allows FOP inside museums. Since we do not know where this was taken, I think we have to assume that FOP does not apply.
- The images above the model. I'm willing to say that they are de minimis. Others might disagree.
- Finally, the question of the model itself. I have always been uncomfortable with the fact that, in all jurisdictions, a good set of paper drawings of this Thresher, showing all three views and all the detail shown here, would clearly have a copyright, but in some jurisdictions, a model might not.
- Does not the model take more work to create than the drawings? Does it not require more creative input? An excellent drawing is simply a faithful reproduction, but a modeler must make creative choices all the time -- small objects -- rope, handrails, etc. -- are hard to show in scale sizes -- and you cannot model every detail, even in relatively large models, so you are making choices all the time.
- I would also argue that if a sculptor makes a 3D sculpture of a person, or a lion, or a gun -- it plainly has a copyright and we delete images in non FOP countries. So how do we reach the conclusion that a sculpture showing a ship is not covered?
- Therefore, I come down on the side of saying that this model does have a copyright. The full size Tango does not, as it is a utility object, but the model does. It would a stretch to call this a toy, but clearly models that are toys have copyright, so why not this model? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Exceptional statements need reliable evidence. Who has copyrighted it, and in what jurisdiction? I'd repeat again, for those who didn't hear it, that the country of origin does not employ the concept of "copyright". "Copyrighting" in the sense of "registering rights with a copyright authority" exists for software, databases, etc.; "copyrighting" in the sense of "registering with money-collecting racket" exists for musical and video recordings; - neither scale models, nor museum exhibits are there. P.S. What "copyrighted artwork" is doing on User:FunkMonk/Files_I_have_created? NVO (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yet no exceptional claims have been made. Copyright does not have to be registered, the moment you create an artwork, the copyright is yours. And please show me which image in my gallery shows "copyrighted artwork". Nominate them for deletion if you so please. I do have some images of sculptures, but they are public domain due to age. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect in case of this jurisdiction. Author's rights emerge "the moment you create" one of sixteen types of intellectual property, from fine art to computer databases. Author's rights exist regardless of anything except the act of creation (or first performance for never-recorded IP), but curiously, and quite often, the author is prohibited from copying the work. Then there are layers of exclusive rights, related rights etc. - in line with Berne Convention. But "copyright" just isn't there. Especially coupled with past tense ("copyrighted") or future tense ("copyrightable"), words that imply some action at obtaining copyright.
- Gallery Q - ping me through "email this user" if you really need to know. Deletion vendetta? not my cup of tea. NVO (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Author's right" seems pretty much like a synonym of "copyright". And if you don't want "deletion vendetta", then you should maybe quit referring to pictures irrelevant to this DR? In any case, I welcome you to nominate any of my uploaded pictures if you feel they are copyvios, I'd do it myself if I thought they were. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- NVO, please forgive me a dumb question. Your have referred several times to "this jurisdiction", but I don't understand where the model is. Certainly it is a model of a Soviet submarine, but the file name includes the NATO code name for the class, so it could be in Russia, the Ukraine, or in a NATO country. The uploader, User:Mike1979 Russia doesn't tell us where he is based, so even that is not a clue. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Author's right" seems pretty much like a synonym of "copyright". And if you don't want "deletion vendetta", then you should maybe quit referring to pictures irrelevant to this DR? In any case, I welcome you to nominate any of my uploaded pictures if you feel they are copyvios, I'd do it myself if I thought they were. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yet no exceptional claims have been made. Copyright does not have to be registered, the moment you create an artwork, the copyright is yours. And please show me which image in my gallery shows "copyrighted artwork". Nominate them for deletion if you so please. I do have some images of sculptures, but they are public domain due to age. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Exceptional statements need reliable evidence. Who has copyrighted it, and in what jurisdiction? I'd repeat again, for those who didn't hear it, that the country of origin does not employ the concept of "copyright". "Copyrighting" in the sense of "registering rights with a copyright authority" exists for software, databases, etc.; "copyrighting" in the sense of "registering with money-collecting racket" exists for musical and video recordings; - neither scale models, nor museum exhibits are there. P.S. What "copyrighted artwork" is doing on User:FunkMonk/Files_I_have_created? NVO (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did photo in museum in Moscow, Russia. The museum is a public. I didn't create the model. I don't know who and how did the model but it was done for museum.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, Mike, although you may not like the result. There is no exception for FOP in Russia, so the creator's rights must be respected. As I argued above, this must be a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright generally subsists in models (e.g., per USC 17 § 101, "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans." (emphasis added) Note, further, that this is not a useful article (as an actual submarine would be), as a useful article is "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information". (USC 17 § 101, emphasis added) The Russian Federation does not have a freedom of panorama position compatible with our definition of freeness. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
watermarks all over the picture. Evalowyn (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Likely a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sí, es un copyvio, procedo a borrar. -- Magister Mathematicae 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Historically incorrect designed, the author simply copied the Serbian CoA and changed the internal crest Dobe (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - it's not a task for Commons to judge that. It's heavily in use - Jcb (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
incorrect licence. not free. 92.226.224.163 06:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep The File ist from the Webpages from the "Niedersächsische Finanzministerium", a goverment organisation. --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - PD-GermanGov is not about this kind of images - Jcb (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
likely to be out of scope, "own work" at least doubtfull. abf «Cabale!» 06:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy: too simple to be copyrighted. Yann (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy: the hammer and sickle symbol can't be copyrighted. The rest is just simple text. Yann (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not only simple text. this one is enclosed in a graphic composition own to this political formation. Oxam Hartog 11:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The composition is too simple to get a copyright. Beside, there can't be a trademark on the hammer and sickle symbol. Yann (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted logo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep derivative of something that would be PD-simple. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as per Jcb and Volody. Yann (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No links to the page, only a single contributor with two edits, doesn't have a list of participants, is not referred to by any other wikis/projects. Seems like a unused/unnoticed page. Rehman 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted phone cqard. No evidence that uploader has permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Claim that this is 100 years old is absurd. No evidence of permission to use this logo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted banner. No evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a copyvio. sole contribution by uploader, small, no exif.... etc. Amada44 talk to me 14:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
File:59120145 Whore, Berlin 2001-2.JPG with blemished face (for no valid reason), out of scope. Leyo 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete completely unnecessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep La mia opinione è qui. [My opinion is here.] [17] --Ligabo (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- And mine here. --Leyo 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are standard ways of blurring a face that are obviously computer-generated. Disfiguring the face of a prostitute has disturbing implications, and whatever your intent in doing so, the impression I got from looking at the two pictures is not that someone intended to hide the identity of the prostitute (which doesn't seem to have been done effectively), but that someone wanted to punish her.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Credo che la "punizione" più crudele sia quella di inserire la foto di questa persona dichiarandola una "prostituta". Se riesci a fare un lavoro di occultamento del viso migliore di quello che ho fatto io, fai pure. Se davvero è questa la tua preoccupazione.
[I think the most cruel punishment is to insert the photo of the person declaring it a "prostitute". If you can do a better job of concealing the face of what I did, go ahead. If this is really your concern.] --Ligabo (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Credo che la "punizione" più crudele sia quella di inserire la foto di questa persona dichiarandola una "prostituta". Se riesci a fare un lavoro di occultamento del viso migliore di quello che ho fatto io, fai pure. Se davvero è questa la tua preoccupazione.
- Delete This is simply a retouched version of file:59120145 Whore, Berlin 2001.JPG for no apparent reason. - Pahles (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in Italy Amada44 talk to me 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Quality is so bad, that it is out of scope. lots of cabbage images. Amada44 talk to me 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, wrong exposition. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in Italy Amada44 talk to me 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
While I can't find the original, the image is part of a series of images uploaded to wikipedia by the same user, who were all found to be blatant copyright violations and were removed. Muhandes (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, a part of ISNA photos, [18]. feydey (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- As the original uploader in en.Wikipedia made a statement that the image is owned by a news agency and not himself, he cannot grant permission to use it. I marked the file for speedy deletion. --Muhandes (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but the sculptor of this statue cannot be dead since >70 years and Bulgaria has no FOP. Thereby a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image of person with no notability - out of scope as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isra con la eléctrica de María.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isra guitarra acustica.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isra guitarra acustica.jpg Santosga (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Eusebius (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Duplicated with File:Flag of the State of Cambodia (alternate svg vesion).svg which is the original SVG version. (see also the date uploaded of this file) Xiengyod (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Duplicated with File:Flag of the State of Cambodia (alternate svg vesion).svg which is the original SVG version. (see also the date uploaded of this file) Xiengyod (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect: seems to be blank flag with colored canton. vector versions availables with and without COA at Category:Flag of Balmaseda EL Willy (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Haus_Königsallee_11_in_Düsseldorf,_erbaut_von_1901_bis_1902_von_den_Architekten_Gottfried_Wehling_und_Aloys_Ludwig,_Grundriss.jpg
[edit]Author is also Aloys Ludwig and died 1969. Wrong licence, violation of copyright. Stephan Schwarzbold (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- +1, delete --Gloecknerd (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The author is: Gottfried Wehling, who died 1913.--Messina (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, maybe not... --Gloecknerd (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Haus_Königsallee_11_in_Düsseldorf,_erbaut_von_1901_bis_1902_von_den_Architekten_Gottfried_Wehling_und_Aloys_Ludwig.jpg
[edit]Author is also Aloys Ludwig and died 1969. Wrong licence, violation of copyright. Stephan Schwarzbold (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
+1, delete--Gloecknerd (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)- It's unclear who the author is: Gottfried Wehling, died 1913, or his partner Ludwig, who died much later.--Gloecknerd (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The author is: Gottfried Wehling, who died 1913.--Messina (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The authorship stays unclear until it's proven that it was Wehling indeed and not Ludwig. It's a copy out of a book. But one book's author died in 1945. The book was published as a reprint in 1990 again. (Disk in German So there could be a copyright violation that should be at the new publisher. So it should be deleted.--Gloecknerd (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
no valid license. 89.0.179.111 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- ?. view: [19] --Sterntreter (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Undelete in 2017. The author of the book died 1946. As no other photographer is given he could be assumed as photographer. See end of this discussion with the uploader. --Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
no valid license. 89.0.179.111 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- ?. view: [20] --Sterntreter (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Undelete in 2017. The author of the book died 1946. As no other photographer is given he could be assumed as photographer. See end of this discussion with the uploader. --Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
broken and maybe not allowed on Commons due to COM:DW. A working version is here if allowed: de:Datei:Fc_barcelona.svg. Saibo (Δ) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The wrong image was accidentally used Erynjean (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
copy vio Snowmanradio (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Work of a living artist Snowmanradio (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is not ground for deletion in itself. It is somewhat iffy, but it has been uploaded by an editor who may or may not be Errol Fuller himself[21], who has also edited his Wikipedia article extensively, on top of this, I got this message when removing the image from an article: [22] FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would expect the image in the book to be copyrighted. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, but the author determines the license. If Errol Fuller himself releases the image under the respective license, then that's how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Proof is needed. On en wiki User RoAlFuGr (user page, talk page) does not provide any personal identification details on his or her user page or talk page. Is OTRS used for images from books? I have invited User RoAlFuGr on en wiki to participate in this discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS is only needed if someone else than the author wants to upload the image, the author does not need to ask himself permission (whether it's from a book or wherever is irrelevant, copyright is copyright). But of course, there is no clear proof that he released the image himself, other than the IP edit I linked to. So what we could do is try to sen Errol Fuller a mail and ask him if he was either the one who uploaded the image or if he gave the uploader permission. Then OTRS would be needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS is definitely needed when authors upload their own work from their own websites. I am not sure if OTRS applies when an uploader reports to be the author of a painting or book, but I think that some sort of proof of identity should be needed. If User RoAlFuGr does not contribute to the discussion here following my invitation, then I guess we will not be able to advance this discussion very far beyond speculation. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can just email Errol Fuller. errolfuller123
btinternet.com[23] FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess there may be a correct way to proceed, so I have left a message for User talk:MGA73, who probably knows what to do. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know everything but I think it would be a good idea to ask Errol Fuller if he can confirm that it was him who uploaded the file on Wikipedia. Has anyone send a mail? --MGA73 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have not asked. I guess he should also be asked if he still has the copyright on the painting or if he has sold it. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even if he sold it, he would still own the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought that it is possible for an author to sell copyrights, perhaps including when a painting is sold. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that is is adequate that I have invited the uploader (see User RoAlFuGr's talk page) to participate in this discussion, and I do not plan to send a message via e-mail to the owner of the new website. Of course, other reviewers here might wish to leave an email message with the owner of the website, as suggested above. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is possible for artists to transfer copyright to other people, but it doesn't happen automatically when you sell a painting, it has to be formally done, which it rarely is from my understanding. And I guess contacting the Wiki editor is adequate, if he doesn't repond I'll email Errol Fuller. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that is is adequate that I have invited the uploader (see User RoAlFuGr's talk page) to participate in this discussion, and I do not plan to send a message via e-mail to the owner of the new website. Of course, other reviewers here might wish to leave an email message with the owner of the website, as suggested above. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought that it is possible for an author to sell copyrights, perhaps including when a painting is sold. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even if he sold it, he would still own the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have not asked. I guess he should also be asked if he still has the copyright on the painting or if he has sold it. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know everything but I think it would be a good idea to ask Errol Fuller if he can confirm that it was him who uploaded the file on Wikipedia. Has anyone send a mail? --MGA73 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess there may be a correct way to proceed, so I have left a message for User talk:MGA73, who probably knows what to do. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can just email Errol Fuller. errolfuller123
- OTRS is definitely needed when authors upload their own work from their own websites. I am not sure if OTRS applies when an uploader reports to be the author of a painting or book, but I think that some sort of proof of identity should be needed. If User RoAlFuGr does not contribute to the discussion here following my invitation, then I guess we will not be able to advance this discussion very far beyond speculation. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS is only needed if someone else than the author wants to upload the image, the author does not need to ask himself permission (whether it's from a book or wherever is irrelevant, copyright is copyright). But of course, there is no clear proof that he released the image himself, other than the IP edit I linked to. So what we could do is try to sen Errol Fuller a mail and ask him if he was either the one who uploaded the image or if he gave the uploader permission. Then OTRS would be needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Proof is needed. On en wiki User RoAlFuGr (user page, talk page) does not provide any personal identification details on his or her user page or talk page. Is OTRS used for images from books? I have invited User RoAlFuGr on en wiki to participate in this discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, but the author determines the license. If Errol Fuller himself releases the image under the respective license, then that's how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would expect the image in the book to be copyrighted. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - no evidence of permission - Jcb (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Probable derivative work, should be possible to replace with OSM map grillo (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-free images, they restrict derivatives. ~~helix84 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- In general, limitations for use that exist for some other reason than copyright, aren't considered unfree in Commons. The rationale for this limitation seems to be anti-counterfeiting, not copyright. Samulili 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. The passage »as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes« didn’t restrict derivatives – only forgery... --FSHL 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:0405.Annabell_002-2.jpg&diff=48120781&oldid=48096532){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://syiarislam.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/saeqeh-fighter-plane-test-tehran1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep counterfeiting laws !=copyright. -Nard 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright. ---HonzaXJ 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright. --Carlomorino 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are no valid reasons for this deletion. --Mess 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As FHSL, Nightstallion and Mess. There is no valid reason to nominate this template for deletion. And, for the record, all this copyright paranoia (as opposed to genuine licencing adherence) is a very bad thing for the Wikimedia projects. — OwenBlacker 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This template is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. Please make comments there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also File:1000DM.JPG should be restored if the outcome is positive (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1000DM.JPG). –Krinkletalk 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed discussion. Template was deleted previously. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This template has already been deleted following a regular (and long) deletion request. Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As Eusebius says, this had a long, arduous, and thorough discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. The appropriate place for any further discussion is Commons:Undeletion requests. I tagged User talk:79.52.212.245 with {{Dont recreate}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Previously deleted. Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The "template:Money-EU" was deleted after a deletion discussion started about the "template:Euro coin common face" (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2). However, each template is about a different subject, a different copyright owner and a different set of copyright conditions:
A) "Template:Euro coin common face" dealt with the designs owned by the European Community. Which means the designs of the common faces of the euro coins. The official reproduction conditions for those are there. On Commons, there were some 20 images that could possibly have used this template, mostly grouped there. (Most of those images should have been deleted as per the deletion decision, but many of them are still waiting).
B) "Template:Money-EU" deals with the designs owned by the European Central Bank. Which means, in fact, the designs of the euro paper banknotes (despite some confusing wording that unfortunately afflicted this template at some point). The official reproduction conditions for those are there and there. On Commons, there are some 70 images correctly tagged with this template, mostly grouped there. (In addition, some users incorrectly placed this template on other images that have nothing to do with it, but that doesn't count.)
I don't know if mixing the two subjects and deleting this template along with the other left an entirely clear situation. Pehaps it might be preferable for this template to get its own decision? So we can get out of this infernal cycle of recreation - deletion - recreation...
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
To better explain what I believe would need clarification: In the deletion debate "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2", the opinion of some participants, and possibly the decision, was apparently based in good part on the analysis of the text of the Eu. Commission's conditions regulating the reproduction of the Eu. Community's designs for the common faces of the coins, and in particular on a perceived problem with the "faithful likeness" clause, which is found in that text. However (unless I missed it), there is no such clause in the text of the Eu. Central Bank's conditions regulating the reproduction of its designs for the banknotes. And the participants didn't seem to examine much the Bank's texts. In the end, the motives for the deletion of the "template:Euro coin common face" (relative to the Comission's conditions regulating the designs of the coins) are explicitely enunciated. But the motives for the deletion of the "template:Money-EU" (relative to the Bank's conditions regulating the designs of the banknotes) do not appear as explicitely. My hope is that this deletion request can be closed with a clear statement to the effect that, based on the examination of the Bank's conditions about the designs of the banknotes (in the documents linked above), those conditions are considered ["free" or "not free"] enough for Commons.
-- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - please check the usage, which seems to not have been done at previous deletions. All inclusions must be checked. If the usage is invalid, the inclusion must be deleted. If after removal no valid license template remains, file must be nominated for deletion. If valid inclusions remain, there is no reason to delete the template. At previous deletions, no delink took place, which caused recreation time after time - feel free to renominate after taking mentioned steps - Jcb (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(i) it clearly says the notes are ECB copyright. (ii) it says the notes may be reproduced subject to certain restrictions (see COM:EURO; for example having SPECIMEN across the image). (iii) most if not all of the images using the template fail to meet the restrictions, and therefore are a breach of the copyright. In addition, it's not clear that the restrictions are compatible with COM:L requirements. Unless this can be cleared up, all files using it should be deleted, and then the template should be converted to a speedy-delete template (like {{Fair use}}). Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose converting into a speedy-tag without making the uploaders aware of the problem. That is deceitful. -- Rillke(q?) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (i) that's a process issue, not a reason to oppose conversion. And I meant conversion after existing files using it have been deleted, BTW, so speedy process would apply to new uploads (doing it for old ones may be confusing). I've clarified that above. (ii) this is not a case where more information from uploaders is likely to be helpful, so informing them isn't really achieving anything - there's nothing they can do about it. Sure, we can notify them if that's what people want, but I'm not really seeing the point. Rd232 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved from speedy: nothing to be copyrighted here, it is just a box Yann (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- wrong name?
- is market to dalete due wrong name? it's Piero Manzoni not Pietro. The photo it's mine, take at local contempraney arts musem (Milano). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latente Flickr (talk • contribs)
- "Just a box", really? Merda d'artista is a work of art, not a box. Manzoni is dead in 1963 and there is no fair use in Italy, so it's due to be deleted. {Sirabder87}Static age 14:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
i can ask to piero manzoni foundation if i can use the photo on wikipedia. http://www.pieromanzoni.org/pop/contatti.htm
meanwhile i delete the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latente Flickr (talk • contribs)
- Keep Nothing to be copyrighted. For example, in Italy similar works of art were been replicated and sold by auction.--Trixt (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - nothing to be copyrighted and also the image has been renamed - Jcb (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Villasms
[edit]- File:Logo Villas Austria.jpg
- File:VillasAuchan.jpg
- File:VillasTherme.jpg
- File:VillasKleineVilla.JPG
- File:VillasGartenhaus.jpg
4 images and 1 logo of a company in Austria with no notability as per de:Villas Austria. The house photos could be kept, but with such a low resolution I see no foreseeable use - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bigger version: File:OrzelekPrzemysla.jpg
Derivative works:
- File:Herb Przemysla II z plaszczem.png
- File:Coa Polish kingdom crown.PNG
- File:Coa Polish kingdom.PNG
- File:PB PLC CoA.png
- File:Orły.JPG
For sure it's not a ineligible pattern. The image is based on a medieval seal of king Przemysł II [24][25], and reconstruction was made probably by the PWN drawer. For sure it has features of creativity work and efforts of the drawer. File has no source, which could indicate Public Domain. File wasn't published in any official law acts as far as we know. JDavid (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
![[24]](http://www.loeser.us/flags/images/poland/coat_of_arms/pieczec_przemyslaw_2.png){kind=link}
![[25]](http://www.poczet.com/grafika/PrzemyslII-sfr6.gif){kind=link}
- Without any doubts these .jpg and .png files aren't scanned or photographied originals. But it is possible that these eagles are faithful reproductions of certain "old" CoA, therefore PD (if treshold of originality wasn't met). However to asses that, the proper source is required (anyway it is for verifiability) and this is apparently (and was) lacking. Moreover there is evidence that these files are based upon certain reconstructions and interpretations, which (if not faithfully reproducing real old CoA) are fully copyrighted. Therefore, sources should be given or files Deleted. Masur (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The originals were produced in XIII century. 716 years is a long time. The derivative works of the public domain are also a public domain. The motive of the eagle in the heraldry during Middle Ages repeated innumerably many times. In Germany, Russia, Czech and Poland, it made the giant career. So nobody can credit to himself rights to the eagle in heraldry. Other matter if it is an only third-rate detail of something bigger. This eagle differs with nothing from among the innumerable quantity of heraldic eagles of the innumerable quantity of families, cities, voivodeships, lands, countries in Europe. Cosmetic modifying of the public domain is inadequate to creations of the present work. No present artist will create the heraldic eagle which would not be a copy of any mediaeval work. An ideal licence it would be {{PD-ineligible}}. All eagles in the heraldry are identical. In Middle Ages one used eagles on millions the proportion of bodies, all colours, and even into paint on chess-boards. All eagles in the heraldry have identically arranged his wings, in the same way arranged gripe, in the same way directed head, tails cosmetically differ between themselves, the heaps of times golden head-band on wings, enough often the ring on the tail... Even though the head was directed left, still only correct licence would be {{PD-ineligible}}. To claim to himself copyrights to eagle′s of heraldic, this as to claim to himself rights to each geometrical figures. --Starscream (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The originals were produced in XIII century - are there any sources for this? Maybe these are only artistic interpretations based on written descriptions and not ideal copies? Provide the sources that these particular representations of eagles are exact copies of PD-old ones and this discussion can be closed. Masur (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC) ps. and the differences that you list, these are excactly differences that make different artworks different. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to make anything different.
- CommentLook at the original mediaeval seal on the right. Every lawyer on our planet would say that identical in 99%. And if I make a mistake, I advise to fix the identity of the first man who drew the square, circle and the triangle. --Starscream (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep In general I agree with User:JDavid and User:Masur that we should be wary of COA graphics without poof that the graphics is not artistic interpretations based on written descriptions. But then I looked on other eagles of Przemysław II, like the one on his seal (see right) or here, and they look very similar to me. I would argue that differences do not cross the threshold of originality. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment And of course meticulous design of all shades, colours, not mentionig even image digitalizing is of course below treshold of originality? So, as an artist, I'd be denied copyrights to my own piece of work, as soos as this work will be roughly, more or less, similar to whatever was created? If yes, gosh, these PWN drawers wouldn't be happy to hear this. And I remind, that here we have a strong suspicion, that the original file was taken from PWN encyclopedia. Masur (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment May be we can find a PD replacement for the file and side-step the whole issue. We do have File:POL Orzeł Piastowski COA.svg which I do not like much and which is VERY similar to files discussed here.--Jarekt (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:POL Orzeł Piastowski COA.svg is completely different from the original basefile, and licensed with CC-BY-SA by the author Bastianow (Bastian). So we can use it. JDavid (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Also I just noticed that the files in question use {{Polishsymbol}} license saying that official "symbols are not subject to copyrights". I do not have much experience with that license, so I do not know how it deals with the fact that all symbols are drawn by someone, and in most cases author did not died before 1940. I am not trying to argue that "since everybody is doing it than it must be OK" but trying to understand what makes those files special. --Jarekt (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not. Symbol must be published in law act or enacted by Polish authorities. JDavid (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment We can find many reconstruction of the old coat of arms. Ex. [26] [27] stamp [28]. All these files have traces of authors' creavity, and mostly are copyrighted in its own publications. We cannot make it ineligible because they look very similar to one-colour seal. JDavid (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
![[26]](http://www.sp4koszalin.com/orzelpolski/0.2.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://sp3-rypin.type.pl/historia/godlo.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.ruinyizamki.pl/krolowie/przemyslawII_orzel.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Excactly. Is it really fair (and legal) to asses whether the treshold of originality was or wasn't reached? At least I myself dont' feel to be in the osition for this, so in such situation like discussed, when I see the evolution from single-coloured picture of an old seal to full couloured raster images, I'd rather assume that at least we cannot fully judge what happend in regards to originality. Privately I'd say that the treshold for it was reached, as JDavid showed in his examples. Masur (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete For sure PolishSymbol template is not valid here, as it apply for contemporary Polish state insignia only. The origin - ie. COA on coin is for sure PD - but it is not true that derivative work of PD work is automatically PD. Only mechanical copy of PD work is also PD. IMHO the color version of COA is for sure a derivative work of original COA not just a replica. Maybe - if there is a color source of COA (for example a painting or an old manuscript) it might be considered as a merely copy of the PD work - but if it was made from monochrome poor-quality source like a coin + some writen description of colors - we have an original work - based on PD sources - but for sure an original one - a kind of interpretation of historical sources - not just a replica. Polimerek (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unknown photographer, so no copyright by uploader. GeorgHH • talk 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi there, as I've mentioned when uploading this picture, it stems from family archive of the depicted, of whom I am a relative, and inherited all of his (copy)rights. The picture itself has been made indeed by an anonymous photographer in some kind of photo shop somewhere in the 50-ies or 60-ies, as you can see, in the same way as passport photos etc. were made at that time. Hoping that this is sufficient to leave the file at its place, --Qniemiec (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - too new for PD-old Jcb (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-US-no notice - Jcb (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- :en says it was "dedicated on May 30, 1964". --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The SIRIS record makes no mention of a copyright notice. Should this be assumed to be {{PD-US-no notice}}? - Eureka Lott 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-US-no notice - Jcb (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Please be refered to this undeletion request in which Carl Lindberg indicated that according to the associated SIRIS art inventory record just a signature is given but not a copyright notice (lookup the Inscription field). --AFBorchert (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. That does again support that especially US-FOP-problems should not be speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-US-no notice - Jcb (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Question How old is this? If it is from before 1978 - is there a copyright notice on the statue? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- :en says "Fredericks was commissioned to sculpt a 6-foot-tall (1.8 m) crucifix, but instead designed this 28-foot (8.5 m), full-scale model, for a bronze to be placed at the Indian River Catholic Shrine in Indian River, Michigan. ... When erected in 1959, it was believed to be the largest crucifix in the world. Since then, a 65-foot (20 m) crucifix was erected in the cemetery of St. Thomas Catholic Church hear Bardstown, Kentucky ... The Indian River figure required only three years to complete, however the plaster model on which it was based required seven-years of restoration before being put on permanent display at the Fredricks Sculpture Museum. It suffered from neglect during the two-decades it was in storage at the foundry in Scandinavia after the bronze was cast. ..." --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. So this is pre-1978, and a copyright mark would be needed for copyright protection. I find it highly unlikely that it would have one, therefore Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. So this is pre-1978, and a copyright mark would be needed for copyright protection. I find it highly unlikely that it would have one, therefore
- :en says "Fredericks was commissioned to sculpt a 6-foot-tall (1.8 m) crucifix, but instead designed this 28-foot (8.5 m), full-scale model, for a bronze to be placed at the Indian River Catholic Shrine in Indian River, Michigan. ... When erected in 1959, it was believed to be the largest crucifix in the world. Since then, a 65-foot (20 m) crucifix was erected in the cemetery of St. Thomas Catholic Church hear Bardstown, Kentucky ... The Indian River figure required only three years to complete, however the plaster model on which it was based required seven-years of restoration before being put on permanent display at the Fredricks Sculpture Museum. It suffered from neglect during the two-decades it was in storage at the foundry in Scandinavia after the bronze was cast. ..." --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - per Pieter Kuiper - Jcb (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - dedicated 1958, unsigned according to SIRIS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
=一⋯，=—::一⋯ 66.129.206.136 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 08:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the sculptor of this statue, en:Marshall Fredericks, died only in 1998 and there is no FOP for non-buildings in the US. Thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep according to SIRIS, installed in 1972, no copyright mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. That does again support that especially US-FOP-problems should not speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
private image GeorgHH • talk 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Cascari1.jpg with blemished face. Leyo 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. No point in having this duplicate with white spots added on the face. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep La mia opinione è qui. [My opinion is here.] [29] --Ligabo (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- And mine here. --Leyo 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
