Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This file copyright violation. The film covers are not allowed on commons. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Copyvio. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. en:File:Incendies.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Suspicious file, as source is listed some fan site, date isn't listed, improperly named hence needs renaming as well. Userpd (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Blatant copyvio; image is part of an advertising campaign the subject did for Marco Bicego. Mbinebri (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- speedy, 10 matches on TinEye --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned and with no obvious use. Quibik (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a temporary advertisment, therefore COM:FOP#Brazil is not OK. Teofilo (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted not permanently installed abf «Cabale!» 09:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Contains a non-free logo (the husky image). See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Connecticut_Huskies.svg. Crazypaco (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Contains a non-free logo (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UConn_Seal.png) Crazypaco (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
error RmSilva pode falar! 06:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " (show/hide) 15:27, 6 February 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Kit body sumare.png" (Uploader request deletion of unused file: Error in upload) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 09:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently out of scope: unused personal pic. Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete From looking at the original upload page, it is just spam. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
claimed "own work, public domain", but picture of presumably copyrighted product design/label...no evidence uploader has company authority to release. Unused (was used only on .en page deleted as hopeless advertising for this company/product) DMacks (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a free enough license for Commons. Description page says "Do not reproduce without permission". Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Description page forbids reproduction on another website, so the license is not free enough for Commons. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Small file, no exif data, multiple hits via Tin Eye. Seems unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Bilby (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on source here: fr:Fichier:Logo Vulbens.jpg, I have high doubts about the public domain Loreleil (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation --Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope. This also applies to File:Refine++ s.png and File:Clean.png by the same uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 10:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Link not showing a CC-BY permission...website is collecting info from web only (See disclaimer) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
this image is an exact duplicate of "File:OF9b of Carabinieri.png" Just Angelus (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " (show/hide) 08:30, 11 February 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:OF9b.png" (Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:OF9b of Carabinieri.png) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 10:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Hyuugadaniel (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ivor Dean.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dreamseekerlaz (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: different resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a temporary drawing to explain a question on a discussion page. It is a bad drawing as well ~ Vier Tildes (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Temporary drawing for the purpose of explaining a question. Vier Tildes (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
bad name A.Catalina (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- How can your own userpage have a bad name? You choose your username by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept seems to be an accidential DR abf «Cabale!» 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No source or liscense MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Could be speedied. Jujutacular talk 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Invalid source, author and licesnse. MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 10:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No author given. No reason to believe he died in the same year as the picture was taken which is required for PD-old. Saibo (Δ) 13:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could it go under {{PD-EU-anonymous}}? --Túrelio 15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- (linked your template proposal) Basicly yes, if we can "make sure the author never claimed authorship." This image is fairly young and still protected if the photographer (or his heirs) claim (or have claimed in the past) authorship since he nearly surely is not more than 70 years dead. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Portrait of a notable person, the background is just de minimis. (Beiwerk auf deutsch.) -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep. Photo of a notable person, stadium behind is still uncompleted and does not contain the roof which is the most notable in the stadium's architecture — NickK (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- 194.48.128.75 09:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This image appears to belong to a photographer named Mike Sheehan, not the Flickr user. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
deleted clear licence laundry on this Flickr account. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not OK for indoors photography. Teofilo (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Aufgabe von Modellen ist es, die Wirklichkeit möglichst nah widerzugeben. Für eine eigene schöpferische Leistung ist da kein Platz. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. Substitute "submarines" for "airplanes", "Russia" for "Germany" - isn't it the same? NVO (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Our clear policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
1986 US Statue. No evidence is provided that the requirements of Template:PD-US-1978-89 are met. Teofilo (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not aware of this requirement. I thought that review from User:FlickreviewR was enough. No objections to be deleted if there are copyvio issues. Mpaa (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the sculptor has a copyright on his work. In some countries there is a specific exemption for photographs of copyrighted sculpture, but not in the USA. Therefore this photo is an infringement on the sculptor's copyright and cannot be kept here. Sorry. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
dubious copyright status. Image seems to be directly pulled from rotating lead banner at the college's website at http://hartford.uconn.edu/ Crazypaco (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is on the banner, and as I am the webmaster and photographer for this campus, I have full rights to use this photo in any and all, printed or digital material to promote or represent the university interests. Also, the photograph does not contain anything that prevents me from releasing this image under the cc license, rather it is more appropriate, not dubious. Tumharyyaaden.
- That's cool if you do own the rights. Typically, such photos are property of the university, not the photographer, as they are work performed by the photographer in service of their employer (the university). In fact, the webpage hosting the banner explicitly says "All documents, webpages, photographs and images are the property of the University of Connecticut, except where noted. Permission is required to copy, download or use any text, photographs or image files." That indicates that the photos are owned by, and a copyrighted claimed by UConn, and that only UConn has the authority to release it to a CC license, although I take you at your word that you have full authority to release the photo on a CC license on behalf of UConn. You should consider an OTSR ticket to avoid any confusion, or at least expand on the situation it in the license tag on the photo page, because on first appearance, it looks like a classic copyright rip from a webpage (especially since the text overlay is intact, it is the identical resolution to the web site, and there is no metadata). I won't be the last to assume that, and some may put it up for speedy delete if they run across it. In any case, on good faith, I thereby withdrawal my deletion request, and will make note of such for the others. Crazypaco (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Per nom, although even with OTRS permission, I think that the banner across the center of the image puts it out of scope. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Dubious copyright claim. Image is directly pulled from lead banner at the college's website at http://hartford.uconn.edu/ Crazypaco (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- See above, withdrawal deletion request based on good faith copyright ownership claim by User:Tumharyyaaden. Crazypaco (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Same problem. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Dubious copyright claim. Image is directly pulled from lead banner at the college's website at http://hartford.uconn.edu/ Crazypaco (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- See above, withdrawal deletion request based on good faith copyright ownership claim by User:Tumharyyaaden. Crazypaco (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This file, a photo of a young Mahathir Mohamad (born 1925), claims to be free under British copyright law. Even if we accept that British copyright law applies to the photo, the file description lacks sufficient information to make out a claim to being free. No information is given on when the photo was made available to the public. Given that Mahathir only became prominent in the 1960s, it is most probable that it didn't become public until at least then, making any pre-1941 publication claim improbable. Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work, no FOP in Italy guerreritoboy (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
claimed "own work, public domain", but picture of presumably copyrighted product design/label...no evidence uploader has company authority to release. Unused (was used only on .en page deleted as hopeless advertising for this company/product DMacks (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Body Soul Mind:to DMacks
What do I need to do to prove that I have the rights to publish this image and use it any way I chose? Don't criticise, this article is not an ad, it is intended to give people objective information. If you wiki it,you'll see that Advertising is a form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to purchase or take some action upon products, ideas, or services. This article does no such thing, it is still under 'construction", and other languages are coming.
Please, clarify what you mean by "Unused", because I started working on it last night, so no wonder! Give me a chance.
Plese, help with advice or let me know what proof you require for the images to be kept on wiki.
To DMacks:
I just read about the rules, as I am new here, and I see your point. Let me try again, and if I skrew up this time, I'll try again, I am learning. However, I do have the right to publish the picture. Please, don't delete. Ask for proof first.
- We definitely do need some proof. Do you work for the company whose product this is? Does the company really intend that their product image become publicly usable for any and all uses by anyone anywhere (including uses that may adversely affect the product/company reputation)? DMacks (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Body Soul Mind, OTRS tickets are used in Commons to verify copyright permissions in cases such as these. MKFI (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be pure advertising. WP:EN article "Cryoderm" has been deleted for being advertising. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Potential problematic with fr:Fichier:Logo_CR_Midi-Pyrénées.svg which demonstrate that there is no free use allowed. But does it fit "creative works" ? But for sure there is no "ineligible for copyright due to the fact of beeing a french region flag", there is no such thing since it's not the flag of the region, but the logo of the institution. And in France such a thing is under copyright Loreleil (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Additionnal information : en:Template:PD-flag-région is no longer relevant and has been deleted due to incompatibility with french copyright on such elements. Loreleil (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- This image has already been deleted once on commons : [1], but didn't find any places where explanation has been done. Loreleil (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_conseil_regional_midi-pyrenees.svg&action=history){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The image's copyright has not expired --Phó Nháy (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
1946 image. Claimed that the photographer has been dead 70 years. Photographer used time travel? Zombie photographer? Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be PD - the image is small, no exif data, and can be found by Tin Eye on multiple sites predating the upload here, some of which [2] are larger. While it is not clear who the copyright holder is, it seems very unlikely to be the uploader. Bilby (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted 10:38, 13 February 2011 DieBuche . Closed today. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by ChicagoHistory1 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 04:46, 17 February 2011 Wknight94 -- Closed today by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Source is 'Photo' and this looks like an artistic work available to public, and the up-loader took the photo of that laminated image, COM:DW ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like screenshot from video, image appears distorted and blurry.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let it be a video or screenshot. The user claims that he is the copyright owner. --Vssun 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- All the copyright violations in commons have the same claim...??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't we need an evidence to prove that it is taken from any other copyrighted source, unless the user has a black history? --Vssun 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Its detailed here Commons:Screenshots and if a doubt original source is required to verify its license requirements.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: FoP does not apply in this case. The stadium it's only part of an image that includes an overview of a city, is not the main purpose of it. --Goldorak (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for me case of de minimis, it's a cityscape, the stadium is not the main subject of the picture, it's a general overview. Jeriby (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 17:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean with FoP? Because there is nothing wrong wth the picture. It's often used, High Resolution and High Quality. Against deletion. And why are you using your IP-address? Aliesperet (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- "often used, resolution and quality" is precisely why such pics are chosen. As for the last question, mine guess is just as good as yours. Perhaps it's because Commons doesn't give a shit about sockpuppetry. P.S. Incredible photo. NVO (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - De minimis - No copyrightable parts are visible.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per one above. -- 194.48.128.75 09:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --77.208.240.122 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - De minimis. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per de minimis but rename to "File:Dubai skyline 2010" or similar. -ELEKHHT 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- KeepKeep the pic for fucks sake
- Keepso far far far cityscape! de minimis clearly. Jeriby (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
non valid 90.4.39.133 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use; no valid reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept No copyright problems and used in a Wikimedia project. --Alpertron (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Does an 1891 photograph really meet 'life of the author plus 70 years' requirements? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, 120 years, so they'd have to live another 50 years post-photo for it to not be PD. Not impossible but not especially likely either. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does the UK have a law like {{PD-EU-anonymous}}? And does this meet its requirements? Otherwise, I generally go with the rule of thumb of 150 years; they made it at 20, lived to 100 (another 80), plus the 70 after death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The UK is in the EU. Therefore PD-EU-anonymous should apply. -- 194.48.128.75 09:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does the UK have a law like {{PD-EU-anonymous}}? And does this meet its requirements? Otherwise, I generally go with the rule of thumb of 150 years; they made it at 20, lived to 100 (another 80), plus the 70 after death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Changed the license tag. --Alpertron (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Tayburn Ltd
[edit]- File:Chewits Identity.jpg
- File:Scottish and Southern Energy Annual Report 2009 cover.jpg
- File:The Standard Club-homepage screenshot.jpg
No permission from Tayburn Ltd --78.55.59.59 06:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No info on either author or date. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed it. Evrik (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- What's the source for this info? Would a Lebanese in the 19th century be named "Chris"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Chris was the photographer used for the interim image I used which was cropped from file:Statue of Saint Charbel.JPG. The current image is PD-Old and the author is unknown. Evrik (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No date or author, so no mindication of this being PD. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The author is unknown, and the date is pre-1898. This is clearly PD old. Evrik (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- How do you know its age? The source doens't seem to specify, it could well have been made posthumously. Not sure how this was closed during the last DR, no new info was provided. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's a photo, correct? He died in 1898, right? That sets the latest year the photo may have been taken. Evrik (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is it even a photo? Looks like a painting. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a painting, you would still expect that the artist has seen the depicted person personally, so that it would still safe to assume that the artist has died before 1968. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, posthumous paintings is not exactly an unknown phenomenon. The problem here is that the source seems to provide little to no information about the image, and we do have the Commons:precautionary principle. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a painting, you would still expect that the artist has seen the depicted person personally, so that it would still safe to assume that the artist has died before 1968. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it even a photo? Looks like a painting. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's a photo, correct? He died in 1898, right? That sets the latest year the photo may have been taken. Evrik (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- How do you know its age? The source doens't seem to specify, it could well have been made posthumously. Not sure how this was closed during the last DR, no new info was provided. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the copyright term in Lebanon is PMA+50 - falls into {{PD-old-assumed|duration=50}} with a 20 years margin - Jcb (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Only for the previous version which does not look so old. E4024 (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- okay to delete the earlier versions. Evrik (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Both previous versions then. --E4024 (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted two prior versions, kept most current, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation --Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 07:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation --Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation -- Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 06:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus it's of way too small res to be usable in any way. Pitke (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation-- Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 07:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the sole author and uploader of this file, requesting the removal his for the following reasons: the strong risk of privacy violation -- Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Privacy violation Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Unsourced photograph; nsd removed by another user. Item is almost certainly old, but we have no proof of publication date, not creation date. This is precisely why we need the source. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - see {{PD-China}}, publication date does not matter for old photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - It seems that the photo became PD in its source country 50 years after creation, as per Pieter. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: No source, no date, no author. Without a source, there is no evidence that the image was first published in China. (If a source is provided to show that it was first published in China and when, then it might be PD-US-1996 + PD-China.) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No source given to validate any claims of the image. The majority of the Chinese were still sporting pigtails until a few years have passed after the revolution led by Sun Yat Sen (i.e. 1911). Their fashion have not changed much between that time and the mid-19th century. This could have been a photograph taken in the early 20th century by a foreigner, and published in the UK or US (or pick your favourite non-China country) immediately or several years after it was taken, or left in his private photo album until his heir or whoever bought the book at a garage sale and distributed/published it on the web. Without a source that documents the origin of the photograph, we cannot tell; "from the Russian Wikipedia" is of no help at all. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator himself says almost certainly old. Keep as {{PD-China}}. Geagea (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - those days people where not yet traveling all over the world during there holidays, while taking hundreds of pictures with their mobile phones. We may safely assume this is from China - Jcb (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
These images are derivative works of copyrighted photographs. The original uploader from flickr is not the copyright holder of these images. Thus (s)he is not allowed to release this image under a free Creative Commons licence High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Takver took a picture of a poster held by one of the protesters which was released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license . The original picture was released under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license by Almasry Alyoum. Under that license it was originally release, you can share it, which what protester did and then Takver released his own photo under a license where anyone can alter, transform, or build upon his work -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Non Commercial and No Derivative Creative Commons licences are not allowed on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
* Then delete it and you need to delete the picture that I took it from and the pictures I extracted from it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is important that you do not misunderstand this DR: your recent work - uploading files about the current incidents in Egypt - is highly appreciated. Adding such images and giving them Commons-structure is a good contribution. --High Contrast (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have to understand my frustration. I have took look through hundreds of photos to look a good image that can add value to the article and then they get deleted. This not the only image that I have uploaded that's properly going to get deleted. if you take a look at my talk page you will see why I am a bit angry. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
KeepThe image was originally used in the article about Khalid Saeed, whose death was one of the main catalysts for the current 2011 Egyptian protests. He is now one of the slogans for the protest, with the "We are Khaled Said Movement" (Said being another spelling of Saeed) being an example. This image is from his autopsy after his death, likely taken by the forensic examiner. It was released onto the internet somehow in June of 2010 and it caused a major amount of worldwide criticism and backlash against Egypt and the image itself was spread around the world, becoming viral. Because of this, I feel that the image is significant and should be used in the article as a representation of this. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, we discuss licence issues in deletion requests not how useable one image can be for Wikimedia. Secondly, do you have the permission of the "forensic examiner" that you are allowed to release this image under a free licence? --High Contrast (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we need someone else's opinion beside yours (the nominator) or mine (the up-loader). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not free enough for Wikimedia Commons Jcb (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No source available for declaring this image as in public domain, FoP in india is not covering the photographs, painting works by other's as it still shows the copyright and will be treated as derivated work, a similar discussion happened here Lord Ram Indian law provides provision to 'make' the work on public places, but photography only for sculptures and architectures..all other options are for cinematographic films.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Essentially, all the problems are the same as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adiparashakti.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: lack of any information or indication about its age Jcb (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not" - Jcb (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Luizcezar43 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: different cameras, other deleted images originated from web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Camelia.boban
[edit]- File:Ostia antica 187.JPG
- File:Ostia antica 188.JPG
- File:Ostia antica 343.JPG
- File:Ostia antica 344.JPG
Reasons for deletion request: the images are duplicates of File:Ostia antica 187.JPG and File:Ostia antica 188.JPG or depict the same scene like File:Ostia antica 343.JPG and File:Ostia antica 344.JPG. --Camelia.boban (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " (show/hide) 08:13, 11 February 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Ostia antica 343.JPG" (Uploader request deletion of unused file: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Ostia antica 345.JPG) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the uploader of this image is the owner of it, since at the same time as uploading this, they uploaded several other obvious copyright violations. There's no real description of where or when this was taken and no metadata. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry I'm new to wikipedia, so still getting to grips with everything. I contacted Twist and Pulse management at A management and they happily sent the pics to me. I have the emails as proof?
How can I get this proof to you?
Thanks JJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobjamesJJ (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We will need permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from the copyright holder -- you cannot simply send any e-mails you may have. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the uploader of this image is the owner of it, since at the same time as uploading this, they uploaded several other obvious copyright violations. There's no real description of where or when this was taken and no metadata. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Hi, I'm sorry I'm new to wikipedia, so still getting to grips with everything. I contacted Twist and Pulse management at A management and they happly sent the pics to me. I have the emails as proof?
How can I get this proof to you? I don't even know if this text will get to you?
Please can you let me know?
Regards, JJ
Deleted Jcb (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Turda_-_Statuia_lui_Avram_Iancu.jpg&action=edit§ion=1 A.Catalina (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I`m not sure I understand your issue. Please enlite me, or brake it into sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special+Utilizator+$ (talk • contribs) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Romania. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the statue text reads Avram Iancu 1824-1872. Does anyone know when the statue was erected, and who the artist was? MKFI (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly it lacks notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special+Utilizator+$ (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is not a criterion for inclusion on Commons. See Commons:Scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Strong keep. What's the point of this removal? --Codrin.B (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Very funny. A "strong keep", but no idea why it is requested for deletion. Unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that this statue is still under the copyright of the original artist. I asked the uploader a month ago about when this statue was installed, but he/she choose not to answer. He/She doesn't care about anything written on his/her talkpage. In addition, Romania has no FoP provision, which might have lifted the copyright restriction for works on public places. Therefore Delete.--Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? What is this FoP?! With your logic, your are going to delete all pictures about Romania. This is nuts.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you expect people to know when statues were erected, who did it them and when did they die? Once they are in public, everyone can photograph them! This is unbelievable! I think you have a twisted interpretation of copyright. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Very funny. A "strong keep", but no idea why it is requested for deletion. Unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that this statue is still under the copyright of the original artist. I asked the uploader a month ago about when this statue was installed, but he/she choose not to answer. He/She doesn't care about anything written on his/her talkpage. In addition, Romania has no FoP provision, which might have lifted the copyright restriction for works on public places. Therefore
Deleted: - please read Commons:Freedom of panorama - Jcb (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in my opinion it's more a cityscape, we can see a lot of other buildings around from a far camera location (just my opinion i'm not expert in FoP). Jeriby (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as Jeriby says. A case of COM:DM. --Edelseider (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France, and there's no way the parliament building, clearly the subject of the photo, is de minimis. Rd232 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I maintain my opinion about this picture, for me it's a cityscape, taken from far away (the Cathédrale is downtown whereas the Parliament is in North Strasbourg). Indeed the zoom factor of the picture is strong, but we can see other buildings, we see the Arte headquarters, we see a nice forrest around, we see older and smaller buildings in foreground... Of course the building of the Parliament is huge in the picture, and the authour could have included more data in the foreground (maybe he cropped that), but the composition "could" be a COM:DM. And I repeat it's just my opinion, I let admins decide for the 2nd time ^^ Jeriby (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The filename is File:European Parliament from Cathedral.jpg. It's a photo of the European Parliament. Therefore the European Parliament is not incidental to the picture, and it is not de minimis. See COM:DM. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just said it was my opinion, then I will add this is just my HUMBLE opinion ;-) Jeriby (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, and I'm trying to change your opinion :) Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just said it was my opinion, then I will add this is just my HUMBLE opinion ;-) Jeriby (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The filename is File:European Parliament from Cathedral.jpg. It's a photo of the European Parliament. Therefore the European Parliament is not incidental to the picture, and it is not de minimis. See COM:DM. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France unfortunately. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, it's the exterior of the stadium, which is the work of Rozhin (as all Commons pictures are already deleted, this one). None of the interiors is the work of Rozhin, he is not the author of neither the pitch (obviously) nor of the chairs. This picture was already kept, nothing changed in Russian laws after that, on the contrary, the amendment to the copyright law allowing FOP are in progress — NickK (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Repetition. See Commons:Deletion requests/Rozhin. Salus populi suprema lex, res ipsa loquitur. --Amarhgil (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wow there! too much Latin for our Hessian freundin. And then Rozhin has nothing to do with Baturina's interiors - Rozhin and Co.'s interiors were stripped many many years ago. But, given her (Fernrohr's not Baturina's) recent fraud with Foster+Partners, I doubt that it matters at all - she seems confused about all these names. Delete, who really cares? NVO (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, it's the exterior of the stadium, which is the work of Rozhin (as all Commons pictures are already deleted, this one). None of the interiors is the work of Rozhin, he is not the author of neither the pitch (obviously) nor of the chairs. This picture was already kept, nothing changed in Russian laws after that, on the contrary, the amendment to the copyright law allowing FOP are in progress — NickK (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
we already have File:RR5119-0005.gif and File:RR5119-0005R.gif separately - do we really need such a compiled image? rubin16 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "already"? No. Those two files were recent uploads (3 days before this nomination) - Jcb (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
bad name A.Catalina (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
bad name A.Catalina (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. (file renamed to File:Augustin Ratiu.jpg) Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite unlikely own shot by uploader; rather professional shot, no EXIF, medium to low resolution; and most uploads from this user have been found to be copyvios. Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
bad name A.Catalina (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
bad name A.Catalina (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. (file renamed to File:Augustin Ratiu.jpg) Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The image on the front is not de minimis, and is as such a copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- copied from en-wiki Regardless of what happens, I have a Milkis in my refridgerator and I can take a new picture. But first you guys reach an agreement on whether or not taking a picture of a bottle is copyvio, or on how small the picture needs to be to not be copyvio, so that I can make sure to take it the right way. (And do it quickly because I want to drink it!) rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: though this might be borderline, I can agree with DM for this Jcb (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted per COMMONS:PACKAGING. Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Label does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. --Wikijunkie (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Colani derivatives No. 2
[edit]- File:Luigicolani.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Colani Concept-Car 05.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ColaniUbootmodell~.jpg
- File:ColaniCoanda2000Personen.jpg
- File:Colani-LKW.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ColaniFlugzeugmodell.jpg
- File:ColaniUboot.jpg
- File:LuigiColani-DesignTrucks.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:LKW Colani Design.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ColaniDampflokModell.jpg
- File:ColaniPC-liegendWorkstation.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ColaniGewehrPistoleFlorettR-Rad.jpg
- File:ColaniParkbank.jpg Keep. –Tryphon☂ 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:ColaniPontresina.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 01.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 02.jpg
- Colani Concept-Car 03.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 04.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 05 .jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 06.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 07.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 08.jpg
- File:Colani Concept-Car 09.jpg
- File:Colani Super-Münch 01.jpg
- File:Colani Super-Münch 02.jpg
These Files are derivatives of copyrighted works by Luigi Colani. The originals are not exempt from copyright protection as they are not articles of daily use but prototypes. Freedom of panorama does not apply. The images need to be removed as we do not have a licence to publish and distribute derivatives of the original artist's works.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Colani derivatives --Wikipeder (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've marked a few as keep, because these are utilitarian objects (trucks, cars, chair, ...). Delete the models. –Tryphon☂ 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked into that. They have never been produced but are still unique prototypes/studies, only that some were licenced to drive on the street. That does not turn them into utilitarian objects, though, I'm afraid. --Wikipeder (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree - it doesn't really matter if a fancy shell is mounted on a real truck platform or just displayed as such - it's just a plastic shell. Treat alike. NVO (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alle von mir (User:StromBer) gemachten "Colani-Aufnahmen" (bis auf [[Datei:ColaniUbootmodell~.jpg]] und [[Datei:ColaniDampflokModell.jpg]]) wurden in Karlsruhe in der Nancyhalle bei der freien Ausstellung gemacht. Mir ist der Löschantrag unverständlich, für jedermann war diese Ausstellung zu besuchen, es war kein Schild mit "Fotografieren Verboten" oder ähnlichem aufgestellt. Sinn und Zweck der Ausstellung war es, die Werke von Herrn Colani jedem vorzustellen. Insofern führt Wiki diese Ausstellung im kleineren Detail weiter. Werke die Herr Colani nicht präsentieren wollte, denke ich mir, wurden auch nicht ausgestellt. Ansonsten müßte der ganze Colani-Artikel zerpflückt werden, weil ja jedes Werk beschrieben/aufgeführt wird. --StromBer (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Schon klar, dass Colani wollte, dass seine Werke in der Ausstellung gesehen werden. Damit hat er aber keine Lizenz erteilt, zweidimensionale Repros seiner Werke zu verbreiten und weltweit kommerziell zu nutzen. Genau so eine Freigabe bräuchten wir aber. Fotografieren darf man fast alles, aber veröffentlichen eben nur mit Erlaubnis der Rechteinhaber. --Wikipeder (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Auch wenn es sich um Protoypen handelt sind sie zum Teil auch in der Öffentlichkeit bewegt worden (Erlkönig). Wie schon oben erwähn entstanden auch meine Aufnahmen während einer Ausstellung in Hamburg, diese wurde in den Medien massiv beworben um "Sehleute" anzulocken. Dabei wurden auch von diversen anderen Fotografen Bilder angefertigt. Keinerlei Hinwisschilder verboten das fotografieren und wenn Colani seine "Kunstwerke" nicht präsentieren wollte hätte er sie in seinen Hallen gelassen. In übrigen ist das fotografieren von Fahrzeugen nach dem deutschen Urheberrech nicht verboten, aich wenn es um Studien handelt (siehe: Benz Patent-Motorwagen). Es handelt sich bein Patent-Motorwagen um einen Nachbau des Originals und ist nie gefahren.--Huhu Uet 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wie gesagt: Fotografiererlaubnis ist nicht gleich Weiterlizenziererlaubnis.
- For the English readers: StromBer and Huhu Uet point out that Colani had not forbidden to take pictures in the exhibition. That may well be true, but that would not give the photographers the right to publish two-dimensional repros of Colanis work, let alone release them under GFDL/CC. --Wikipeder (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Auch wenn es sich um Protoypen handelt sind sie zum Teil auch in der Öffentlichkeit bewegt worden (Erlkönig). Wie schon oben erwähn entstanden auch meine Aufnahmen während einer Ausstellung in Hamburg, diese wurde in den Medien massiv beworben um "Sehleute" anzulocken. Dabei wurden auch von diversen anderen Fotografen Bilder angefertigt. Keinerlei Hinwisschilder verboten das fotografieren und wenn Colani seine "Kunstwerke" nicht präsentieren wollte hätte er sie in seinen Hallen gelassen. In übrigen ist das fotografieren von Fahrzeugen nach dem deutschen Urheberrech nicht verboten, aich wenn es um Studien handelt (siehe: Benz Patent-Motorwagen). Es handelt sich bein Patent-Motorwagen um einen Nachbau des Originals und ist nie gefahren.--Huhu Uet 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Schon klar, dass Colani wollte, dass seine Werke in der Ausstellung gesehen werden. Damit hat er aber keine Lizenz erteilt, zweidimensionale Repros seiner Werke zu verbreiten und weltweit kommerziell zu nutzen. Genau so eine Freigabe bräuchten wir aber. Fotografieren darf man fast alles, aber veröffentlichen eben nur mit Erlaubnis der Rechteinhaber. --Wikipeder (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted most, per the nom. Kept several, as they may pass the test as utilitarian objects. I would welcome a new DR for those, if anyone disagrees. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Postcards of Italy, post-1950
[edit]- File:BZ-Bolzano-Gries-1950-Hotel-Flora.jpg
- File:GE-Santa-Margherita-Ligure-1950-.jpg
- File:LC-Rossino-1950-m430-panorama.jpg
- File:LC-Rossino-1950.jpg
- File:MO-Barigazzo-1950-stazione-climatica-mt1230-sorgenti-gas-metano.jpg
- File:TN-Passo-Pordoi-1950-verso-la-Marmolada-m3340.jpg
- File:TS-Trieste-1950-piazza-Umberto-I.jpg
- File:TS-Trieste-1950.jpg
- File:VI-Arzignano-1950-panorama.jpg
- File:BG-Caravaggio-1951-chiesa-Santa-Liberata.jpg
- File:BO-Bologna-1951-giardino-Minghetti.jpg
- File:Cavi-di-Lavagna-1951.jpg
- File:Citta-del-Vaticano-1951-Basilica-San-Pietro.jpg
- File:Forte-dei-Marmi-1951.jpg
- File:LC-Margno-1951-mt-816.jpg
- File:Loano-1951jpg.jpg
- File:TN-Vigo-di-Fassa-1951-bar-seggiovia-Ciampedie-m1980.jpg
- File:Varazze-lungomare-1951.jpg
- File:BA-Bari-1952-panorama-lungomare.jpg
- File:BL-Pieve-di-Cadore-1952mt878-lago-e-monte-Dubles.jpg
- File:CL-Caltanissetta-1952-stazione-centrale.jpg
- File:CL-Caltanissetta-1952-villa-Amedeo.jpg
- File:CO-Civenna-1952-il-lago-verso-Lecco-mt650.jpg
- File:CO-Erba-1952-Buco-del-Piombo-esterno.jpg
- File:CS-Cosenza-1952-giardini-pubblici.jpg
- File:Cortina-d.Ampezzo-BL-1952.jpg
- File:GE-Sestri-Levante1952-grand-hotel-dei-Castelli.jpg
- File:GE-Voltri-1952-via-don-Giovanni-Verita.jpg
- File:IM-Sanremo-1952-bagni-e-spiaggia-Morgana.jpg
- File:OT-La-Maddaalena-1952-panorama.jpg
- File:OT-La-Maddalena-1952-panorama-e-porto.jpg
- File:SO-Chiesa-Valmalenco-1952-mt1000.jpg
- File:SO-Passo-d-Aprica-1952-mt1200.jpg
- File:UD-Udine-1952-piazzale-Osoppo.jpg
- File:VA-Orino-e-Azzio-1952.jpg
- File:VA-Sacro-Monte-di-Varese-1952-Santuario-ricordo.jpg
- File:VA-Varese-1952-Velate-villa-Sorriso-e-S-Monte.jpg
- File:VB-Isola-Bella-1952-lago-Maggiore.jpg
- File:VR-Peschiera-del-Garda-1952-.jpg
Postcards are tagged {{PD-self}}, but actually appear to be vintage postcards from the uploader's personal collection. At least 70 years must have passed for these postcards to be public domain in Italy, so they are still under copyright. Absent OTRS consent from the copyright-holder, these images should be deleted. Postcards from the same uploader for the years 1963 and 1966 to 1973 have already been deleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: They should probably not be tagged with PD-self, because Commons does not acknowledge the existence of a new copyright for the making of record photographs or scans of pre-existing two-dimensional works. But, other than that, as most of those images seem to have been originally published in Italy before 1976, they should probably be examined on a case by case basis, and see if each passes the test of article 87 + 92 of the Italian copyright law. Which is a somewhat subjective determination. Eventually tag the photos to be kept with PD-US-1996 + PD-Italy. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is the gist of Articles 87 and 92 that copyright in photographs only lasts 20 years in Italy? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The law distinguishes two types of photographs. "Simple photographs", defined in art. 87, are protected until 20 years from creation. "Works of photographic art", mentioned in art. 2 (7), are protected until 70 years pma. The catch is to try and distinguish between the two types. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may also see this: Template:PD-Italy --Carlomorino (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Although Commons:Licensing states that the rule for "non-artistic" photographs "is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should not be used on Commons" and "Photographs in general enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death, this rule should be used instead." I'm not trying to be argumentative (and would be delighted if we could keep these postcards in accordance with Commons rules), but is there consensus to use the simple photographs rule? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the recent discussions over the restoration of the PD-Italy tag do, in fact, constitute a change in the Commons approach to the so-called "simple photographs" from Italy, shouldn't Commons:Licensing#Italy be amended? And shouldn't there be some explanation as to how we have agreed to determine whether an image has "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality"? Just because Italian law is ambiguous doesn't mean that the approach on the Commons has to be. The determination should be something that any experienced Commons contributor should be able to make, in assessing whether or not to nominate something for deletion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The wording in that COM:L section is obsolete. It was modified in January 2009 (by this edit and the next few edits), in the wake of the first debate where a couple of non-Italian users of Commons argued that their personal opinion about the application of the Italian law was better than that of the whole Parliament and legal community of Italy. Since then, Commons has come to its senses. The wording on the Licensing page should be re-modified accordingly. This brings us back to the starting point and still leaves the situation that you mentioned: "Just because [country X's] law is ambiguous doesn't mean that the approach on the Commons has to be. The determination should be something that any experienced Commons contributor should be able to make [...]" I do not have the answers. Perhaps we could use the experience of the it.wp users. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the recent discussions over the restoration of the PD-Italy tag do, in fact, constitute a change in the Commons approach to the so-called "simple photographs" from Italy, shouldn't Commons:Licensing#Italy be amended? And shouldn't there be some explanation as to how we have agreed to determine whether an image has "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality"? Just because Italian law is ambiguous doesn't mean that the approach on the Commons has to be. The determination should be something that any experienced Commons contributor should be able to make, in assessing whether or not to nominate something for deletion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Although Commons:Licensing states that the rule for "non-artistic" photographs "is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should not be used on Commons" and "Photographs in general enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death, this rule should be used instead." I'm not trying to be argumentative (and would be delighted if we could keep these postcards in accordance with Commons rules), but is there consensus to use the simple photographs rule? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may also see this: Template:PD-Italy --Carlomorino (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The law distinguishes two types of photographs. "Simple photographs", defined in art. 87, are protected until 20 years from creation. "Works of photographic art", mentioned in art. 2 (7), are protected until 70 years pma. The catch is to try and distinguish between the two types. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is the gist of Articles 87 and 92 that copyright in photographs only lasts 20 years in Italy? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating it - we can hopefully now avoid some confusion. However, the issue still isn't resolved. Right now, as modified, COM:L#Italy simply tells us that the situation is confusing and we should be careful. Absent some sort of agreed-upon rule of thumb, the application of the 20-year simple photograph rule on the Commons is unworkable. We need a clear guideline to direct us in these situations, consistent with Italian law. Otherwise, the precautionary principle would direct that these images all be deleted - an unfortunate result. This is a tremendous opportunity to ensure that a lot of Italian content on Commons is preserved. But if the law is so complicated that we can never be sure of public domain status, I would think that the images listed above (not to mention many, many others) would all need to be deleted. I would like to avoid that. Any luck canvassing it.wp users? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- To resolve the issue I think we must discuss file for file, if each one is artistic or not. So i ask to close this mass deletion request (if I can of course, despite my edits I'm no so practiced about deletion procedures). Law is crystal clear: simple photographs are 20 years copyrighted and now are free. So we can't mass delete all picture between 70 and 20 years ago--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- How is that possible without knowing how to determine the difference between artistic and non-artistic works? So far no one has come forward with any indication of how Italian law makes that determination. If we do it on a case by case basis at this point, with no rule of thumb or principles to guide us, the likelihood is that these images, and many others like them, will be subject to inconsistent and subjective decisions, meaning that there will be doubt as to whether any of them are free or not. At the end of the day, that's a recipe for mass deletion of more images than these. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I would like to save these images, and others like them, which is why I am spending so much time here, canvassing input at COM:VP, etc. But the general approach on the Commons is that any photograph, other than a pure derivative work, requires some creativity, and creativity implies artistry. Under normal circumstances, I can't see how anyone can argue that these images are not artistic. However, I suspect that Italian law has drawn the line between simple/non-artistic and artistic differently, in a manner that would (hopefully) allow us to keep these images. But we need to know and understand the details of how Italian law makes that determination. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- How is that possible without knowing how to determine the difference between artistic and non-artistic works? So far no one has come forward with any indication of how Italian law makes that determination. If we do it on a case by case basis at this point, with no rule of thumb or principles to guide us, the likelihood is that these images, and many others like them, will be subject to inconsistent and subjective decisions, meaning that there will be doubt as to whether any of them are free or not. At the end of the day, that's a recipe for mass deletion of more images than these. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, ok. You have a Point. I'm a layer, not an advocate but a company consultant, so I can do much for it but, again :), I'm still able to use a phone, so tomorrow I'll call a major advocate association proficient in brands, copyrighting and intangible assets right, and, I promise, I'll refer with all my professionalism their complete most prudential (but i think unique too, as usually) professional opinion. Hoping that's enough.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fantastic. But see if they can point you to something online, or refer you to something that can be found online. Thanks! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation remained unclear Jcb (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)