Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![49 File:"Herbstranke"von A.W.Baum.jpg](#File:"Herbstranke"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
![50 File:"Der Seeteufel"von A.W.Baum.jpg](#File:"Der_Seeteufel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
![51 File:"An der Angel"von A.W.Baum.jpg](#File:"An_der_Angel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
No source for individual images, likely copyvios. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- See webLink --Penarc (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, it should had been there from he start though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- See webLink --Penarc (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
These images have had various tags placed on them, such as Flickr review and OTRS. As far as I can tell, none of them are valid. None were added by license reviewers or OTRS members, and none check out on Flickr or OTRS. These are photos of a 13-year old whose article was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia several times as promotional and non-encyclopedic. [1]. In any case, the images are all blurry and probably out of scope. Chaser (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: Apparently he's done some TV acting work. See Category:Eliseo Gonzalez. I can't find much googling him.--Chaser (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Quickly now. This is mere vandalism, the uploader now started to change the information to complete nonsense. First he claimed this a "White House photo by Chris Greenberg", then he claimed it comes from "Greg in Hollywood". Commons is not a sandbox, and Commons is also not a place for personal images for self-promotion. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No encylcopedic value. User was spam-blocked on enWiki. Admrboltz (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't see how this file could ever be sensibly used. Albacore (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality and chemically incorrect: NH3 would be +, and AA would not be cationic in presence of OH- (a *base* not acid). Viable replacement might be File:Amino acid titration.png DMacks (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality and chemically incorrect: H3O would be + not –, and AA would not be anionic in presence of H3O+ (an *acid* not base). Viable replacement might be File:Amino acid titration.png DMacks (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
looks like a videoshot Evalowyn (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- and that is not a bar.. Evalowyn (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this is actually on Party Pilipinas show, and we took this photo using OUR digital camera so i think there is no copyright violation into that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielalexis17 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The uplaoder destroyed his reputation himself with trying to steal photos via flickr. For example File:Jonaflickr01.jpg was uploaded from flickr where this user just uploaded it with the bullshit claim that he created the photo, but in fact he had stolen it minutes ago from another flickr user. I dont know what this user things this is, but a little tip: This is not a project to upload stolen files with such lies or any other false claim. --Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose Reywas92 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep The image is the source image for two images of notable people (actors) used in wikipedia articles. Obviously within project scope --Tony Wills (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep like Tony Wills --Fg68at de:Disk 03:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Obvously notable people. In addition this image is used on other Wikimedia projects. --High Contrast (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. In use, in scope. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
and File:Kevinabrown (228x350).jpg. Contradicting license claims -- "All rights reserved" and CC-Zero. Trycatch (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Related article en:Jabula_"Stress"_Hudson was deleted too George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
seems to be download http://www.detroityes.com/webisodes/2002/8mile/021106-04-8mile-berlin-wall.jpg from http://www.detroityes.com/webisodes/2002/8mile/021106-04-8mile-berlin-wall.htm --Sargoth (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No proof it is own work (see TinEye matches) Ianezz (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Picture made with my computer from tv-fragment" is not a valid source 81.186.253.47 11:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Real source is Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon from 1976. I took a pictre from the show with my computer. Taking the picture was my work, but it was a fragment from the 1976 episode of Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon.
Deleted: the original is still copyrighted DieBuche (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation (see channel logo) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Very low quality pic. Out of scope project. Abujoy (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete too low quality to be useful. MKFI (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, no description, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, no description, not used not in scope Avron (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused and poor quality file. Dobe (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Liqueur created in 1989 according to http://www.atontour.com/amarula-ingredient-859.html So the picture of the elephant is not old enough to be PD Teofilo (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Prominently features copyrightable label artwork. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted label not in PD. The Interior (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Private image, not a notable person. GeorgHH • talk 22:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low quality image of portal element for Wikipedia. --ZooFari 23:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
why the map is PD? 92.230.81.221 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be scanned from a printed professionally made source, no information about the actual original (especially that it's actually the uploader's own creation). DMacks (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (poor resolution, and "Me" can be ambiguous per manual-of-style for chem diagrams), superceded by File:Cyclopentyl methyl ether synthesis 1.png DMacks (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (poor resolution, and "Me" can be ambiguous per manual-of-style for chem diagrams), superceded by File:Cyclopentyl methyl ether synthesis 2.png DMacks (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Low quality (key symbols are illegible), poor format; replaced by math typesetting in its former only use (en:Radical clock) and could easily be redrawn in better format if needed. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete TeX is fine here. BTW: There is Template:Use TeX. --Leyo 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 15:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose Reywas92 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep fi:WP was reverted, so it is in use. --Fg68at de:Disk 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete...no revert, no scope, just private. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:A sand sculpture on a Fire Island beach.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Author was British and died less than 70 years ago: http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehistoriclifebeforekt/diplodocus_ntm_1905_woodward_1951.html FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It is probable that the uploader is not the copyright owner, given that it is the front cover of a magazine. 92.9.41.51 21:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The image is intended to show the way the parent company of the airline publicly disseminated the acquisition of new aircraft, just the way a press release does. I see no reasons for deletion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. -- Common Good (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Family photo" is ambiguous. It might have been taken by a photographer who is not a member of the family. Teofilo (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium is not OK Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor Eugène De Bremaecker died in 1963, there is no FOP in Belgium, so this is an infringement of the sculptor's copyright. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Claims PD-source, but source page is silent about it, and its parent page says "Copyright © 2001-2011 The Hong Kong Society of Wargamers" NVO (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
U. S. work, with no explanation of how this is out of copyright in the United States. —innotata 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Listed source is:
- "Runte, Alfred "Joseph Grinnell and Yosemite" p 89"
which was published in 1990. There is no reason to believe that this photo was published before that.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Modern painting inside building COM:FOP#France is not OK. Teofilo (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Modern painting inside building COM:FOP#France is not OK. Teofilo (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Modern painting inside building COM:FOP#France is not OK. Teofilo (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
no license since december Evalowyn (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's not quite correct. It's been tagged as missing a source since 10 December. The source stated by the uploader (a currently blocked, persistent copyright violator who claimed to be the copyright holder releasing it under the terms of the terms of the GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses) was "Bandera del Municipio San Francisco.svg.png". It's clearly a raster copy of File:Flag of San Francisco (Zulia).svg, uploaded two and a half years after the original. We could correct the details, but since it's inferior and redundant, just delete it. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Artist died in 1948, so 70 years did not yet pass. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - en:Irving Ramsey Wiles was an American painter - PD-US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1904 US painting is PD-US-1923 --Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation, no permission has been given to release under this licence Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, no permission has been given to release under this licence --221.79.42.226 22:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Low quality pics, not used, out of scope project. Abujoy (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
copivo Agent001 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused and low-quality. Blurry picture of a glass jar. Useless and out of COM:SCOPE Wknight94 talk 14:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No verification this image is registered in Argentina, originates from another country Denniss (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got this picture from Historia de los Mundiales, from El Gráfico, an Argentine magazine, as told in the description. --Caio Brandão Costa (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not relevant if there's no info about the author of this image. Publication in Argentina is not relevant if the image originates from outside Argentina. This specific law applies only to images made in Argentina with a slight chance it also applies to images made by Argentinians outside Argentina. --Denniss (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, the image is not "older than 25 years" nor is there proof of publication 20 years ago, both required for PD-Arg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Too shaded, camel has cut head and legs off, stick covering it + timestamp and blur. We have many other better photos of camels, this one is not needed. Vearthy (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, timestamp, blurry. No encyclopedical use. Vearthy (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Replaced with Category:Gibraltar Defence Police Gibmetal77 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC) fixed — Jeff G. ツ 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom of page creator. — Jeff G. ツ 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
user request Rafaelgarcia (talk | contribs) 08:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[2] fixed — Jeff G. ツ 17:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it has much valuable information about the user's interaction with the Commons community. The user may archive it if he so chooses. — Jeff G. ツ 17:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
framed image appears pulled from a website hence nonfree Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded with incorrect name (re-uploaded correctly at File:Cyclopentyl methyl ether synthesis 1.png) DMacks (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Baum died 1977. Xocolatl (Diskussion) 18:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC) (fixed --Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
![07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Manuelt15-2011-02-12T07:08:00.000Z-File:"Herbstranke"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
![13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-02-19T13:02:00.000Z-File:"Herbstranke"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Baum died 1977. Xocolatl (Diskussion) 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) (fixed --Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
![07:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Manuelt15-2011-02-12T07:09:00.000Z-File:"Der_Seeteufel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
![13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-02-19T13:01:00.000Z-File:"Der_Seeteufel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Baum died 1977. Xocolatl (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
![17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Captain-tucker-2011-02-18T17:41:00.000Z-File:"An_der_Angel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
![13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/02/05#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-02-19T13:01:00.000Z-File:"An_der_Angel"von_A.W.Baum.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium: "Commons:Freedom of panorama#Belgium. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: the photographer/uploader has contacted me by e-mail, and is in the process of obtaining permission from the sculptor. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- On Feb. 5 Jef Claerhout, creator and sole owner of the copyright, asserted via mail that he agrees with publication of this photo on Wikepedia. Vaneiles (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Vaneiles has informed me that the e-mail from Claerhout was forwarded to OTRS. I have applied {{OTRS pending}} to the image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- On Feb. 5 Jef Claerhout, creator and sole owner of the copyright, asserted via mail that he agrees with publication of this photo on Wikepedia. Vaneiles (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Characteristic morie from scan of offset printing. HIghly unlikely "own work" particularly given the record of the uploader. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP. Jujutacular talk 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
copivo Agent001 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Jameslwoodward Trycatch (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF Qoan (dis-me!) 12:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -missing exif does not apply.Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry? Qoan (dis-me!) 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Justass (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
user request[3] Rafaelgarcia (talk | contribs) 08:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC) fixed — Jeff G. ツ 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jameslwoodward (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose Reywas92 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It says "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: etc." which means uploader Alextrevelian 006 claims to be the copyrightholder. I doubt that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Well of course they are just releasing copyright of their photograph, we need a new section in Commons:Currency about the status of Columbian currency. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: we don't have evidence this money is free Jcb (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a picture of a drawing, in non-FOP US Prosfilaes (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader of this photo appears to be en:Willie Williams (set designer), U2's set designer. He has uploaded several images to commons last June in which he claimed to be Williams and the copyright owner of the work. If this is truthful, then FOP doesn't apply, as he would be the scenic designer responsible for the image in question. Instead of deleting this, I suggest that we try to validate this claim by contacting him through his web site and seeing if we can get a more clear grant of permission through OTRS. These would obviously be great images to have and I'd hate to loose them if they really were uploaded by Williams. Zachlipton (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: file can be undeleted on valid OTRS permission recival Jcb (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW Photograph of a copyrighted poster... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No source has been shown that this has published before 1941 or published on 1953. This looks like pencil drawing than a photograph, Google books shows no photos Souvenir-1953 ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sitter's dates are (1874-1941); this is a photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the closing admin did't given a reason, i am re-opening this DR with the same info-- No source has been shown that this has published before 1941 or published on 1953. This looks like pencil drawing than a photograph, Google books shows no photos Souvenir-1953 ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - these repeated renominations by the guy with the giant signature are disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such photograph as per This JPEG image was created by Wiki user Aaroamal by digitizing a printed reproduction of the photograph in the S. N. D. P. Yogam Golden Jubilee Souvenir published in 1953 this statement, check the link from google books......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The link does not show the book, your accusations are baseless; this is pure disruption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such photograph as per This JPEG image was created by Wiki user Aaroamal by digitizing a printed reproduction of the photograph in the S. N. D. P. Yogam Golden Jubilee Souvenir published in 1953 this statement, check the link from google books......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper's arguments. Its allowed under Indian copyright law. It doesn't need a specific source. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Pieter Kuiper - Link shows the book without any problem, and that particular book is not containing this photograph, If there is a photograph, we need to wait 2 more years for its PD release...please provide a valid source showing that this particular photograph is published before 60 years..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The link you have given is of "Communal road to a secular Kerala" By George Mathew published in 1989 and not of the SNDP souvenir. And why are we even discussing the copyright over the photograph of a person who died in 1941? -- Razimantv (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Pieter Kuiper - Link shows the book without any problem, and that particular book is not containing this photograph, If there is a photograph, we need to wait 2 more years for its PD release...please provide a valid source showing that this particular photograph is published before 60 years..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept OK - this time let's give you a reason. Closed as "kept" per PK & Leoboudv. Let's not see this here again unless there is a valid new reason. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights. the photographs were obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography and with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a duplicate deletion request from the same user. Only one should be used at any time. Please close the discussion linked to here. Asav (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
user tm is using photographs ilegally obtained
[edit]because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights. the photographs were obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography and with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a duplicate deletion request from the same user. Only one should be used at any time. Please close the discussion linked to here. Asav (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
because it is a copyrighted photography with personality rights Raquel Oliveira (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep File was licensed with a free license at the time of the upload, so this file is copyrighted but with a free license. Also this photo as taken, as can be seen in the description "Portuguese dancer who performed in the first part of the concert by Jeronimo Maya, guitarist, at the Aula Magna, June 19.", so this photo was taken in a concert in a (very) public space where there isnt much expectation of privacy because according to the portuguese law, in paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.
A rough translation:
"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."
So this image is fine for several reasons:
1- Was taken in a public event in a 1st part of a concert on one of the greatest cocert halls in Portugal, made covered by the Portuguese photopress.
2- Its a notorious person.
3- The person portrayed is, dancing, so acting on its most notorious job.
3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.
4- Its a fact of the public interest.
So i ask the deletion requester to expand on its reasoning to want this image deleted. Tm (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DELETE Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
personality rights 79.168.8.197 09:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
personality rights, the photograph was obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The Auditorium whilst being a "public place" was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming.
personality rights 79.168.5.234 09:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Image is legal and free, already marked with {{Personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license. Bidgee (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: The photographs were ilegally obtained.The Auditorium were they were taken, whilst being a "public place", was subject to restrictions because the public was forbidden from photographing or filming. And if the photographer hadn't placed without consent the photographs on Flickr, these would not have been online with the possibility of being copied. These photographs were placed online without the proper authorization. It was never given verbal or written authorization to the organization of Flamenco Festival of Lisbon or to the photographer to use the images, outside the scope of the Festival and beyond the dates of the Flamenco Festival 2009.--79.168.5.234 09:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Bidgee (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
While I haven't found the exact copy of the image, I've found one similar image on another site uploaded around the same time. I've also had to delete a few copyvios on en.wiki from the same uploader as they were newspaper images that wer uploaded as own work/public domain. I think the precautionary principle should apply here. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Although the source is a USA DoD site, the photographer is shown as "unknown", so the PD tag cannot be used. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1977 photo, details get lost. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep same opinion as above. JJ Georges (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Compare http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-ST-84-01730&guid=96b459caa234cdfbb6ad07a64188b64234a09106, which was also taken at the same Iranian Air Base during the same exercise. Presumably the authorship is US Air Force in origin, as the F in the VIRIN name, DF-ST-84-01727, I believe designates that the USAF is the author of the photo. BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- KeepIf the US goverement says it PD, it's PD.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Both the medal and the photo have a copyright. We have no source or credible date of author for either. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No credible source or author, no reason to believe license status. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep US amendament #1 says each citizen is not guilty. What if you`re wrong and the uploader had the printed licence you complain to not seen. Who has the true criminal intent, then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special+Utilizator+$ (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That will add your signature and a time stamp to the comment.
- Actually the US Constitution, and certainly the First Amendment, are silent on the right to be presumed innocent.
- Also, that is not the rule here -- all uploads are presumed copyvio and it is up to the uploader or others to provide evidence that they may remain here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No credible source or author, no publication date, no reason to believe this is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly published (raster), no reason to doubt PD-Iran. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: - probably publiced, but we don't know when - blocked bad faith uploader - Jcb (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No credible source or author, no publication date, no reason to believe this is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No credible source or author, no publication date, no reason to believe this is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
From speedy. Nominated by User:Magicpiano: "Per source of image, it was created in 1934; there is no disclaimer of copyright, source http://www.cslib.org/gov/haynesj.htm" It's very likely that the picture is not free (Harold Abbott Green died in 1969, the painting was created in 1934), but it can be free if it was first pubilshed in the US before 1964 without renewal, so I've moved this to DR. Trycatch (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the image is present in Founders and leaders of Connecticut, 1633-1783 (published 1934), it should be OK; according to the Rutgers copyright renewal database, this book's copyright was not renewed. There might be other post-1934 books on Connecticut colonial history that have it. (The Massachusetts official bio page for Haynes also uses the image; it's possible that Massachusetts colonial histories might contain it too, but he wasn't nearly as significant there as Connecticut.) Magic♪piano 21:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright status unclear Jcb (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this image has been first published in Argentina. In my point of view, it has been first publish iin Spain. - Zil (d) 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No verification this image originates from Argentina just because it appears in an Argentinian magazine Denniss (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's your point of view against mine. Of course it was not originated in Argentina (but in Spain), but it was published there, in a time covered by the law 11732. --Caio Brandão Costa (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Publication in Argentina is not relevant if the image originates from outside Argentina. This specific law applies only to images made in Argentina with a slight chance it also applies to images made by Argentinians outside Argentina. --Denniss (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"For photographic works, the duration of property rights is of TWENTY (20) years from the date of first publication", that's what is said in the art. 34 from the Argentine law n 11723 (translation of "Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación"). The law doesn´t talk about images originated inside or outside Argentina, only about images PUBLICATED in Argentina. And this image was publicated in the cover of an Argentine magazine before 1984 (year that Maradona was transfered from Barcelona to Napoli), more then 26 years ago. --Caio Brandão Costa (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- As said, argentinian regulation does not affect (shorten, change) copyright protection in the county of origin (if it's not argentinian, hence the term "registered in Argentina") thus it's not relevant for Commons in such cases. Uploader has to provide evidence this image was made in Argentia or by an argentinin photographer. I believe the Licene template should be modified to have a clear statement regading usable images with this licene. --Denniss (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the image may be PD in Argentina is irrelevant. It is also possibly PD in other countries with a short copyright term. But it is not PD in Spain, its country of first publication, which is all that matters here. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Images of User:Pierrealivon
[edit]All images by Pierrealivon (talk · contribs) are out of COM:SCOPE self-promotion for his photography and art. The only use is on his fr.wp user page where he made the only edit almost two years ago. Wknight94 talk 14:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ZOOM-AIMEZ-MOI.jpg
- File:ZOOM-ATOME.jpg
- File:Pierrealivon02.jpg
- File:CRANE-ATOME.jpg
- File:CRANE-AIMEZ-MOI.jpg
- Delete True, commons is not a private web host. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom DieBuche (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
PDF files by Diego666bad
[edit]- File:Formación de Imágenes por Resonancia Magnética.pdf
- File:Sistema de Inyeccion Electronica de Combustible.pdf
- File:Electrocardiograma Inalambrico.pdf
- File:Los Superconductores.pdf
- File:Sistema de Frenos ABS.pdf
- File:Ignición Transistorizada.pdf
- File:El Electrobisturí.pdf
- File:Microondas.pdf
- File:EL TACÓMETRO.pdf
- File:Micro.pdf
- File:TRANSFORMADORES.pdf
- File:PÉRDIDAS DE POTENCIA EN TRANSFORMADORES.pdf
- File:Desfibrilador Externo Automático.pdf
- File:LA ILUMINACIÓN A BASE DE Leds.pdf
- File:Tecnologia OLED.pdf
- File:TRANSFORMADOR TRIFASICO.pdf
- File:LA ELECTRÓNICA EN LA MEDICINA.pdf
- File:Transformadores Trifasicos.pdf
PDF files by Diego666bad (talk · contribs) are out of scope of this project for various reasons:
- 1) Media files like this uploaded to provide textual information are considered articles, Commons is not a project for articles. Commons is also not a filehost or a page to collect student submissions. Such material is maybe appropriate on Wikiversity but not here.
- 2) Commons:Project scope#Excluded_educational_content (Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto#Contenido_educativo_excluido)
- 3) The articles are written by various authors, it is not clear if Diego666bad is allowed to license this works
- 4) The articles include a number of media files without any source for this media files. It is not clear weather this illustrations have been published under a free license by their true copyright holders.
--Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality. Category:Anas platyrhynchos has enough images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. --Tryphon (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Very useless. For example here we have a good quality image with a drake and a duck. Here are several more. There are also several pictures of that lake: Category:Lac de la base de loisirs d'Orcières-Merlette. The composition and the quality of this image is actually such that the image could be from anywhere. Samulili (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not a likely candidate for FP for sure, but it is in use as (as far as I could tell) an illustration of ducks/wildlife in this particular lake. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Frech Wikipedia use it, it can´t be useless. If they want it, we should not dictate them our liking. --Dezidor (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Too blurry, dark, low quality. No encyclopedical use + timestamp. Vearthy (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jameslwoodward (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Source is Copyrighted — Iune(talk) 15:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
bad name--Kresspahl (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[4]
- Keep pending request for better name at User talk:Kresspahl#Category:Studentenverbindungen_in_Hesse. — Jeff G. ツ 01:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The nominator has edited since I posted that request, but has not responded. I suggest Category:Fraternities in Hesse. — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty Jcb (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ratuito wiki.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
and File:Feira Livre no bairro Novo à Sabiniano Maia - Guarabira-Pb -.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thousands of airports have policies like this. It is not the responsibility of Wikimedia Commons to warn about all the worldwide legislation regarding photography. If it is, a lot of templates are missing! See also: Commons:Village_pump#Legal_warnings --Ysangkok (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete in the spirit of en:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Multichill (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- weak delete as useless. There are three instances that may be of real concern: personality rights, freedom of (interior) panorama, police terrorism. As for the first two - commons already has some mechanisms in place. They don't work well, and this template isn't any better. As for the third one, if a passer-by can see something, it's as good as a photograph. Concealment takes more than banning casual snapshots. P.S. Two thirds of my own uploads can be decorated with a similar notice (it's a police state, not Denmark). But will it make any sense? NVO (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I now have no objections for the deletion of this. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see where they "forbid". I don't see any wording like "you must" or "compulsory" in http://www.cph.dk/CPH/UK/Newsroom/Who+What+and+Where/Access+and+permits/Non+press+related+filming+and+photography.htm . It tells what rules apply to you if you request a permission. It does not tell what rules apply if you don't. "No more than five persons are allowed access without special permission" seeems to say that it is OK if you are less than 5 people. I am listing this request in today's log. Teofilo (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- No it says that you need special permission to be more than five - not that you don't need a permission if you are less. I belive that the five person-rule is that you need to be allowed for unaccompanied access for person number six and onwards. I have no specific knowledge of this as this wasn't debated when I had "my little experience" with airport security. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a traveller with an airplane ticket you have the permission to enter the airport. Any additional permission added to the usual airplane ticket permission becomes special. Taking pictures is a specific action that can be distinguished from the usual passenger action (such as sitting, waiting, having a drink at the bar, and shopping at the duty free shop). Perhaps you are right, but what they say is not so clear. Teofilo (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Putting airplane ticket as an equal to permission could be it - we are in over my head now. My basic intent was just to ensure, that other people travelling through Copenhagen Airport doesn't end up in the same situation as I ended up in, and that good faith users of photos from Copenhagen Airport, doesn't suddenly end up in a crappy situation. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you explain what happened to you ? Teofilo (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. On my way out of the airport I snapped some photos at various places, until I got stopped by airport security, who inquired to the nature of my photography, the purpose with it, if I had permission and if there where any employees of the airport or companies working at the airport on the photos. I then showed them my photos (there where none of the latter as my photography was mainly signs) and they then explained briefly the rules to me (no photography without permission, that photography of some areas (not specified by them though) also requires security clearance by the police and/or the Danish Customs Service and that they wouldn't press the issue further if my photos were only for personal use). After that I left the airport without taking any further photos, I believe under their constant eyes. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you uploaded the pictures on Commons and you now want to have the pictures deleted, I agree that your pictures can be deleted so that you don't have troubles. You might be interested in reading Matthew B. Harrison, The Legalities of urban exploration photos, photosandthelaw.com, 2009 (about the USA, not about Danemark, unfortunately). Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. On my way out of the airport I snapped some photos at various places, until I got stopped by airport security, who inquired to the nature of my photography, the purpose with it, if I had permission and if there where any employees of the airport or companies working at the airport on the photos. I then showed them my photos (there where none of the latter as my photography was mainly signs) and they then explained briefly the rules to me (no photography without permission, that photography of some areas (not specified by them though) also requires security clearance by the police and/or the Danish Customs Service and that they wouldn't press the issue further if my photos were only for personal use). After that I left the airport without taking any further photos, I believe under their constant eyes. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you explain what happened to you ? Teofilo (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Putting airplane ticket as an equal to permission could be it - we are in over my head now. My basic intent was just to ensure, that other people travelling through Copenhagen Airport doesn't end up in the same situation as I ended up in, and that good faith users of photos from Copenhagen Airport, doesn't suddenly end up in a crappy situation. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a traveller with an airplane ticket you have the permission to enter the airport. Any additional permission added to the usual airplane ticket permission becomes special. Taking pictures is a specific action that can be distinguished from the usual passenger action (such as sitting, waiting, having a drink at the bar, and shopping at the duty free shop). Perhaps you are right, but what they say is not so clear. Teofilo (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- No it says that you need special permission to be more than five - not that you don't need a permission if you are less. I belive that the five person-rule is that you need to be allowed for unaccompanied access for person number six and onwards. I have no specific knowledge of this as this wasn't debated when I had "my little experience" with airport security. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
picture of living people without permitions from the pictured people MartinS (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is in Italy -- see other uploads by the user -- and therefore not a problem as stated, but I think they are out of scope, as they are good-looking kids, but not notable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Picture isnot used in any articles Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Photographer name "Marchand" is written on the picture, so that the "own work" claim is probably mistaken. Subject died in 1963. No idea when photographer Marchand died (or if he is still alive) Teofilo (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cette photo est la photo officielle d'Eugène de Bremaecker commandée pour servir comme telle au photographe Marchand prise en 1941(galerie St Hubert à Bruxelles). La photo appartient à la collection De Bremaecker, toute propriété intellectuelle appartient à ce fond dont je détiens la totalité des droits. Tous les droits de reproduction des œuvres d'Eugène de Bremaecker, sont ma propriété. (The previous unsigned comment was added to the talk page here by User:Micheldb 23:34, 5 February 2011)
- Delete This is a studio portrait. It is very unusual for a studio photographer to transfer copyright in his work to the subject and I see no reason to believe that it happened here. Since the photograph was taken in 1941, the photographer cannot have been dead for seventy years, so this must be a delete. It is also, of course, not "own work" as claimed by the uploader. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
J'ai fourni a plusieurs reprises la preuve que les photos que j'ai placée sont ma propriété et que j'en possède tous les droits conformément à la législation belge et européenne. Je regrette que des personnes ignorantes de la situation qui a été expiquée plusieurs fois en tentant de modifier les documents que j'ai déposé essaye de porter atteinte à la propriété intellectuelle des articles déposés. Les droits sont libres. Il est inutile d'y revenir tous les ans.