Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/08
 |
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}
_at_night_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
magazine cover Evalowyn 15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free magazine cover. The uploader tried to replace en:File:Wine enthusiast front.jpg (which is a file on English Wikipedia, not a file on Commons), but that file is fair use. Fair use is not allowed on Commons, this is a free content only project. --Martin H. 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This does not look like a normal aerial photo — between the labels on the streets and the overall appearance of the buildings and the ground, this is seemingly a screen capture from a website. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete copied from Bing map. Teofilo (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ID! I've tagged the file for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Closed early per Nyttend's Speedy, as Bing is a clear copyvio. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
error Dswu (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
portrait right Dswu (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Viji Thomas (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Dr. Ujjwal Patni.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Russia MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
- Charming. And your point was, specifically?
- BTW, could someone less fop-minded take a look at Flickr page - how can "CC-BY-2.0" marry with "Request to license photos via Getty Images" ?! NVO (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: If the church is 200 or 300+ years old then FOP does not apply since the architect would have been dead for more than 70 years. But if its a more modern building (say 80-90 years old), FOP would likely still apply to this church and Commons cannot keep it...unless the architect died in 1940. Perhaps someone knows more about this church? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's in the name of the category? But then the "help page" is very specific on the subject: there's no 70, 100, 80 or 90 yeat provision (where did you get those?). All images of man-made structures from behind the wall violate COM:FOP, whether it's 17th or 11th century. Duralex, as our Hessian freundin says. The sysops want them all deleted, and they will have their way, sooner or later. Resistance is futile, you better move your stuff elsewhere, to a safe and sane place. NVO (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment:Leoboudv is correct because any work in Russia 70 years after the authors death is in the Public domain according to The help page on Public domain. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, too old for copyright. Please read the terms stated at {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Question:When was the building constructed? MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Before creating the absurd nomination, even a little would have looked around - in the category of the church is a link to a page where the date of construction - between 1677 and 1682. Прежде чем создавать абсурдные номинации, хоть немного осмотрелись бы - в категории церкви стоит ссылка на статью, где указана дата постройки - между 1677 и 1682.--Berillium (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep Old enough. Ridiculous nomination. -- 194.48.128.75 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. 17th century buildings are PD. No need for further discussion. A.S. 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
no copyrights Swiftvictor (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
delete images from wikimedia common Swiftvictor (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
no copyrights Swiftvictor (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
delete images from wikimedia common Swiftvictor (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
from http://www.as.com/futbol/articulo/queiroz-dice-futuro-depende-acuerdo/20080706dasdasftb_9/Tes Evalowyn 17:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright infringement. Deleted while removaing all files uploaded by abusive sockpuppets of Amir.Hossein.7055. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
i wantto change it Sandipsandilyasonu (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
_at_night_.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in italy MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
_at_night_.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: According to this article the main facade of the duomo of Milan (this picture here) was completed by 1812 or 7 years after 1805 (see the first paragraph after completion) in the wikipedia article I cited.). If so, the architect of the church's facade would have been dead for more than 70 years and this image can be kept. FOP expires 70 years after the death of the architect. Other parts of the church would have been built until the 1930s but this section of the church was already completed. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, too old for copyright. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Old enough. Ridiculous nomination. -- 194.48.128.75 10:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per nomination withdrawn and no delete votes MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
_at_night_.jpg){kind=link}
DW of exhibit pictured, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- "DW"? The exhibit pictured here is a silhouette created by White Watson of himself. This is explained in the article. The picture is well out of copyright as Watson died in 1835. The QR Code is public domain by definition and surely the phone company would not claim that is viewing software was copyright? I will add this rationale to the commons file.
Withdrawn by nom. On balance, you're probably right. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright violation: [1], [2]. —zedlik (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted.
- The photo is a derivative work of the non-free artwork
- The photo is not even own work as climed but grabbed from some websites (as all content this user uploaded so far)
WRONG PHOTO 85.133.199.144 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No permission, also out of scope, only use on deleted COM:ADVERT page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Image is a screenshot from the television show "Grey's Anatomy" and therefore is not freely licensed Dismas (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
obsolete Emvfr (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; not used anywhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom DieBuche (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; orphaned; spammy; missing author and/or source; description appears to be transwiki’ed from Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom DieBuche (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unused low-quality image (superceded by File:Butyric anhydride.svg; would be trivial to draw higher-quality .png if needed) DMacks 16:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem with me, delete it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unused, superceded by higher-quality File:Indole_structure.png DMacks (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality, no realistic educational use 99of9 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete + no source, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photogaph of a 3D work, while the work, the medal, might be PD for the given reason, the photograhic work is not public domain. Comparable to Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet (although the shapes here are more than just a coin) Martin H. (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete: Agreed. No evidence that the photograph of a 3D object is any of the items stated in {{PD-RU-exempt}} or even released under a suitable license. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom DieBuche (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: to tiny to be usable as well DieBuche (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused JPEG version of File:Confederate_LGBT_Flag.svg Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 00:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
low-quality unused (superceded by File:Instatin.png) DMacks 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope that you do not delete the gif version of Isatin. It is used in the Wikibook Chemical Information Sources Gary Dorman Wiggins (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has been replaced in b:Chemical Information Sources/Chemical Name and Formula Searches. If you are not happy with this, an SVG version with the same orientation can always been drawn and uploaded. --Leyo 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at that use of it, the orientation previously matched a piece of ASCII-art that is trying to illustrate something about a ring-system. Is that ASCII-art what one actually finds by the described search method, or should have an image? Bonus: image could include the canonical numbering of the atoms in the ring-structure (for example, File:Indole numbered.svg, since the numbering is pretty important for the next bit of content in the article. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Better image available.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at that use of it, the orientation previously matched a piece of ASCII-art that is trying to illustrate something about a ring-system. Is that ASCII-art what one actually finds by the described search method, or should have an image? Bonus: image could include the canonical numbering of the atoms in the ring-structure (for example, File:Indole numbered.svg, since the numbering is pretty important for the next bit of content in the article. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It is no longer being used and has been replaced with formated text. AlexWolfx 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Identical file on En.WP identified as non-free, under copyright Sphilbrick (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Everyone can make a screenshot like this since it's a nine inch nails clip so I don't get it what the problem is. So definitely Sphilbrick is not the owner of this one
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
File with same name Identifed as non-free on EN.WP Sphilbrick (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why this image is tagged for deletion, it is a logo, and logos are everywhere in Wikipedia. Please clarify the reason of deletion for me, and what can I do to fix this. Hassan Hisham CMC (talk)
Deleted: Fair use (logos) are only allowed on en.wikipedia.org DieBuche (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete, derivative of someone else's photograph. NVO (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
quality is so bad that I question the scope of this image Amada44 talk to me 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the image is fine as it is. It's art. Evrik (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Commons is not flickr or deviantart. DieBuche (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown person Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: biografia oficial.... DieBuche (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Quality is (in most cases) not reason for deletion, but this looks like a screen from some game DieBuche (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musician Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musician Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bandspam DieBuche (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musician Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bandspam DieBuche (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope. The article Kamline shems was delated on french wikipedia [3] Traumrune (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete, no use for that one --Isderion (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio anyway DieBuche (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DieBuche (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. unused since 2009 personal logo George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
DW of text in image, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Text may be freedom of panorama - however the text was not important to the picture and has been cropped out. Victuallers (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's still DW of the silhouette. Unless the uploader can show that the silhouette is old, it has a copyright. Graphic works (and text, for that matter) do not have FOP in the UK. I am afraid that the same objection will apply to most photographs of museum exhibits unless the exhibit itself is all PD-old. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question Text can be copyrighted..??? {{PD-text}} or {{PD-font}}...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's still DW of the silhouette. Unless the uploader can show that the silhouette is old, it has a copyright. Graphic works (and text, for that matter) do not have FOP in the UK. I am afraid that the same objection will apply to most photographs of museum exhibits unless the exhibit itself is all PD-old. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Three different issues here:
- {{PD-font}} -- a raster font cannot be copyrighted in the USA (although it may be protected by a design patent)-- thus you can use any raster font you chose to display a particular piece of text. Note that this is a question of whether the use is an infringement on the font itself, not about anything displayed in it. Vector fonts, being derived from computer programs, may have a copyright in the USA.
- {{PD-text}} -- simple text cannot be copyrighted -- as it says in the template, "facts, data, and unoriginal information" cannot be protected.
- More complex text. All original writing, in this case a short biography of John Farey, is subject to copyright. Although the boundary is not clear, the standard is not particularly high -- there are cases where five or six words are enough. Certainly a paragraph is enough, unless already PD, or just bald facts. The Chilean miner's message, "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33" was declared copyrightable in Chile. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The cropped version is okay. The silhouette can be found on many websites (here for example). In fact, it's the only image that could be found for John Farey. The image description at the John Farey Sr. article claims that "The silhouette is by his freind White Watson". Silhouette portraits were very popular in his lifetime, and I have no reason to think that this is a new depiction. Hence Keep -- Orionist ★ talk 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Kept the redacted version, deleted the version with text. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not used. Logo without description; only upload of the user. Traumrune (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
it seems like scan frome some book, not like "own work" Oxam Hartog 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
no reference at this person as someone known on the net . other people named K Harrington but not same person. Out of scope. an other file by this uploader was cancelled by the past. Oxam Hartog 23:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
same photo in B&W here author can't be in same time photographer and subject Oxam Hartog 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photogaph of a 3D work, while the work, the medal, might be PD for the given reason, the photograhic work is not public domain. Comparable to Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet (although the shapes here are more than just a coin) Martin H. (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete: Agreed. No evidence that the photograph of a 3D object is any of the items stated in {{PD-RU-exempt}} or even released under a suitable license. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The two views of each single enantiomer appear to be mismatched. Unused (have several individual files corresponding to the individual enantiomers, see use at en:Vince lactam) DMacks 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, not correct. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not yet public domain, Dutch painter died in 1959. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep HBO series should be relevant enough--DieBuche (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
everything unknown. PD-old-70 not possible proven. Is it a photo? Then it is from around 1897. Pages I can find via tineye do not give info or are dead. Saibo (Δ) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why isn't PD-old-70 possible? De Guaita has been dead for over 110 years; it's quite possible that the photographer has been dead for more than seventy years. Of course, it's not certain, so I can't argue to keep for that reason. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're right - I meant it not like I wrote it. As there is not even a date given PD-old-70 was totally unsupported.
- We could keep it with a PD-anon tag if somebody tries to find out more about this pic or knows more about it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: "Pesquisa na Internet" (Portugeuse) => "Search the Internet"... mind as well slap a {{nsd}} and let it be deleted after 7 days if the uploader cannot be bothered to tell where this image was taken from, when it was published/taken, and who was the author. Images created in 1881 (when subject is 20 years old) can still be copyrighted: author was 20 years old then, died 60 years later, and image is copyrighted until 2012 in those 70-year pma countries that do not consider first publishing. Since this is a mustachioed subject, it is far more likely, it is created later than 1881, and we have not yet determined US copyright status if this image was published later than 1923 or ever. Jappalang (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Source is required to prove PD status.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
A painting is not a photograph or phonogram. Therefore PMA 1962 + 70 is the rule that applies. Teofilo (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Agreed, Candido Portinari died in 1962, so it is copyrighted in Brazil until 2073. This is not even considering the possibility he or his heirs have in some way published the painting during 1934–77 that would have qualified it for US 95-year copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC) <nounclude> </noinclude>
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Painter died in 1962. Teofilo (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It might have been first published in the USA in 1957 for display at the United Nations (see http://scaffolds.ancientblog.net/2011/01/26/maxim-global-brazil-un-candido-portinari-murals-war-and-peace/ ) . So it might be PD-US-no-Notice, but who knows ? Teofilo (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It might have been first published in Brazil if the Brazilian governement first showed it to the Brazilian people at home before donating it to the UN. Teofilo (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I think they were first displayed in Brazil before going to New York, because United Nations Radio says "no one in Brazil thought to ever see them again". There is a little possiblity that the work is PD in the USA (but not in Brazil) in case it was published in the US within 30 days. But the rules on Commons is that the work must be PD both in country of origin and USA. Teofilo 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm ok with Teofilo. It's probably not under the license published. I upload it as part of a batch upload. Should be deleted. - Zil (d) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Although Gonzo was created by Goelz,[4] it seems the copyright of the characters have been transferred to Henson Associates Inc. (Renewal registration: RE0000897099 / 2004-02-02 for: GU0000061160 / 1976-07-27) Did the company give permission for Gonzo to be used for any purpose? If not, then the original upload should be deleted, leaving the portrait of Goelz for any use. ~ Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
I can upload an updated version, sans Gonzo, upon request. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Kept verson without Gonzo, deleted previous version Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
As mentioned in the Wikipedia article's caption—"Egghead, created and performed by Mark Gale": The puppet is copyrighted to Gale; hence, his permission is needed for the imagery of his creation to be used for any purpose. If no permission was received (and processed via an OTRS ticket), then the original upload should be deleted and only Barnhart's portrait left in place. ~ Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Kept version without Egghead, deleted previous version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The latest versions with a red square are out of COM:SCOPE. The older version consisting of Art by a famous person is without permission and a duplicate of File:Vincent-Bethell.png. Teofilo (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
low-quality (artifacts) unused; replaceable with File:BB&T Logo.svg; logo is trademarked, so want to minimize amount of non-freely-reusable content on commons DMacks (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not generally delete png files just because an svg is available. There is no copyright here and we do not worry about trademark. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Picture from en-wiki used to create this file was deleted as copyvio: w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 9#File:AMD Barcelona die.jpg Trycatch (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 11:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the painting is too big for De Minimis to apply. Teofilo (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I upload it as part of a batch upload. I'm not sure about this one. The main topic of the picture it's not the painting in my opinion. - Zil (d) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend cropping the picture a little above the heads of the people, removing the most important part of the painting. Teofilo (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Done - Zil (d) 12:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have cropped it more. Cropping in the middle of a work infringes the artist's moral right (see "intégrité de l'oeuvre" in fr:Droit d'auteur). Please delete only the older versions. I also added the rename template to change the name, because the File is no longer the same as the Flickr file. Teofilo (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Older versions deleted, latest kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Theatre poster in Russia. No FOP in Russia COM:FOP. Teofilo (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Не вижу проблем с лицензированием изображения.--Peterburg23 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
[Machine translation]
- "I do not see problems with licensing the image""
Deleted: It infringes on the copyright of the poster. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No specific source given to prove the picture is USMA work. Uploader removed no-source tag. Wknight94 talk 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- from www.usma.edu/tour/images/michieStadium1.jpg
- http://www.usma.edu/about.asp (the "Online tour" link does not work)
- archive.org
- -- Common Good (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately still doesn't give a clear idea on who took the picture and in what capacity. Wknight94 talk 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- source: united states military academy at west pointGostate1 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who took the picture? In what capacity? Wknight94 talk 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Army Black Knights official facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Army-Black-Knights/100974704136#!/album.php?aid=93103&id=100974704136 Gostate1 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Still doesn't answer who took it and in what capacity. Wknight94 talk 13:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Army Black Knights official facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Army-Black-Knights/100974704136#!/album.php?aid=93103&id=100974704136 Gostate1 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who took the picture? In what capacity? Wknight94 talk 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We do not use Facebook as a source. Wkinght is correct, we do not know who took the photo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No specific source given to prove the picture is USMA work. Uploader removed no-source tag. Wknight94 talk 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- source: united states military academy at west pointGostate1 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did you get it? Wknight94 talk 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Army Black Knights official facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Army-Black-Knights/100974704136#!/album.php?aid=93103&id=100974704136 Gostate1 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Still doesn't answer who took it and in what capacity. Wknight94 talk 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Army Black Knights official facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Army-Black-Knights/100974704136#!/album.php?aid=93103&id=100974704136 Gostate1 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did you get it? Wknight94 talk 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- source: united states military academy at west pointGostate1 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No specific source given to prove the picture is USMA work. Uploader removed no-source tag. Wknight94 talk 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- source: united states military academy at west pointGostate1 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did you get it? Wknight94 talk 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Images are Copyright Brian J. McMorrow 1999-2010 as per the pbase link ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Nothing copyrightable on the image, just a glass facade and technical constructions. A.S. 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Given public domain rational is obviously wrong, the artist not died >70 years ago. Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Died 1968 Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
_Portal_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Russia MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, way too old for copyright. Please read the terms stated at {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No elimination!!!
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
- Eugenio: Technically, our friend Fernrohr (or is it Duralex?) is correct here: according to COM:FOP#Russia, commons cannot host anything built in this country, whether it's 17th century or 18th. They may also say that the image does not credit all authors of the primary work and thus violates terms of CC license. They may also say that the mural is not the real thing but a modern job (and darnt they will be right - these things last not more than twenty years). This or that way, sysops will have their way. Don't waste your time, take a detour. They delete two, you upoad twenty. It's how this game is played. NVO (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Before creating the absurd nomination, even a little would have looked around - in the category of the church is a link to a page where the date of construction - between 1677 and 1682. Прежде чем создавать абсурдные номинации, хоть немного осмотрелись бы - в категории церкви стоит ссылка на статью, где указана дата постройки - между 1677 и 1682.--Berillium (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep per one above. Ridiculous nomination. -- 194.48.128.75 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: The nominator above didn't know that this is a 17th century church. The lack of FOP is not a problem when the original architect of a building has been dead for at least 70 years. In this case, the architect almost certainly died more than 70 years ago. I am a trusted user and I was told this by Admin Jastrow of France. Other Admins have said the same thing to me so I know it is true. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept -- nomination withdrawn and no delete votes MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)}}
_Portal_.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free image. Yes, the girl in a hard hat... NVO (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
permission? Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
permission? Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm the original photographer and contributor. The subject requested its deletion. I'm cool with that. Simoneau (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I would be inclined to keep the file, as commons only has one other photo of Sarah McLellan, and of a much lower resolution. MKFI (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question Did the subject just request to delete the work from Commons? As it is still available on the source website at Flickr, surely that is a much more public location that the author has control of? Perhaps further explaination is required --Tony Wills (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not, as a genral rule, remove photographs at the request of the subject unless we have a good choice of alternatives. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
website with permission not available 80.228.182.234 11:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment archive.org has a copy [5], but I did not immediately spot anything that would grant a CC permission. MKFI (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. A not particularly good photograph of a school in the centre of a medium-sized Swedish town. Someone there (or visiting) could easily take a new picture and upload it with a correct license. --Hegvald (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission Trycatch (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The pyramid is very prominent. Trycatch (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It's even more "de minimis" than Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Louvre at night centered.jpg. Or try to find some new original argument. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said, case of "de minimis", the pyramid is not the main subject of the picture. Jeriby (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Clear de minimis as per 2005 court ruling described at Commons:FOP#France . --ELEKHHT 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Old building in the PD and it's all correct with pyramid according to Commons:De minimis. -- TarzanASG +1 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis -- 194.48.128.75 10:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The louvre is the main subject of this photo, not the pyramid. Certainly de minimis. -- Orionist ★ talk 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as said above, case of de minimis. Jeriby (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright in China is life+50; who is the author, and when did they die? If it's anonymous, then there needs to be a tag stating China's rules on anonymous work. Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a partial scan (the article is cut-off with a comma "...手段，"); the end of the article might have the reporter's name and this is needed to vouch for claims of authorship. Furthermore, even if there is a 50-year post publication rule for anonymous works, this piece of text (news) would fall foul of US restoration of copyrights (only those published before 1946, if such a 50-year rule exist, would qualify for {{PD-US-1996}}). Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep (conditionally): After checking the original Chinese newspaper article from 1953 [6], I cannot find any individual authorship. If the original is not really eligible for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, it would be copyrighted in China through 2003 like an organizational work, thus under URAA copyright restoration through 2048 in the USA, then {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and {{PD-China}} would both apply. We do not yet have a formal policy to massively delete works tagged "Not-PD-US-URAA".--Jusjih (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep added {{PD-PRC-exempt}} template for partial image of news article --Tenmei (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep added {{PD-PRC-exempt}} --Sky Wing Sky (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; it's no english & I can't read. Move it to china & pass the issue to them 2 decide--Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Okay, I guess I'll accept that Chinese law really does exempt all news articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the correct national flag of the Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918). Please refer to the source provided [7]. Buttons (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- If you take a look at that source, the design that is up for deletion can be seen at https://www.fotw.info/flags/rs_k.html#sta. I would suggest a keep and rename. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but I would like to stress that this design is of the State flag not the National flag as the title misleadingly implies. Buttons (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is where a rename comes in. Remember, I am an admin and I can rename stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright if you feel that’s a better idea, but I don't think we need both the svg and png files, especially since they are not consistent with each other and the colours would need to be corrected (per source) for this svg file. Buttons (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- That can easily be fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright if you feel that’s a better idea, but I don't think we need both the svg and png files, especially since they are not consistent with each other and the colours would need to be corrected (per source) for this svg file. Buttons (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is where a rename comes in. Remember, I am an admin and I can rename stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but I would like to stress that this design is of the State flag not the National flag as the title misleadingly implies. Buttons (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
should remain as it is, please!--Rokerismoravee (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom, it would have marginal use even as a state flag. It's also pretty clear this flag creates nothing but confusion. Dobe (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the correct national flag of the Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918). Please refer to the source provided [8]. Buttons (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- If you take a look at that source, the design that is up for deletion can be seen at https://www.fotw.info/flags/rs_k.html#sta. I would suggest a keep and rename. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it would have marginal use even as a state flag. Dobe (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Uploads of Mike da man212
[edit]Look at Mike da man212's talk page — all twenty-five sections are warnings about copyright violations. As a result, we're beyond the point of assuming good faith: it's not safe to keep any of his images. --Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- See WhatLinksHere for a complete list of files that are included in this nomination; everything that links to it (except for the deletion requests pages :-) is included in this nomination. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:W-1881-original-casstech.jpg is probably from 1881 and old enough to be PD. Teofilo (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Ctwinloss.png contains no copyrightable element. All other pictures need to be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- To the latter point, it's not a copyvio, but is it in scope? -- it's just a table of data. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is used, so it is in scope. Teofilo (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- pOLICY AT EN:wp SAYS THAT IMAGES SHOULD NOT BE USED WHEN A TABLE WILL SUFFICE: THIS IMAGE SHOULDN'T BE IN USE THERE, AND IT'S NOT IN USE ANYWHERE ELSE. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, sorry for the caps lock issue...Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not our business at Wikimedia Commons to enforce other wikis' policies. Even if not suitable for the English Wikipedia, the picture might be useful for other non-wiki users. As far as I know that picture is within COM:SCOPE, like any table with data scanned from a book if these data provide knowledge about some topic. I don't see why these data should be less in COM:SCOPE than File:Cthelmet212.png, File:CTJERSEY2010.png and File:Ctlogo212.jpeg. Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's my business as an en:wp editor and admin to enforce en:wp policy over there: that's why I removed it. Moreover, the fact that it has an English caption makes it rather useless for projects in other languages, and the lack of sources for the data means that others are less likely to find it useful in non-Wikipedia projects even in English. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have found a source for the File:Ctlogo212.jpeg logo : a similar looking logo is seen on the building on File:CassTechHighSchool.jpg. So there is no risk that this logo is mistaken. I think the list of the football results might be useful for Wikinews. Or for any highschool student who wants to write an article about that topic in their local student newspaper. If you have doubts about the accuracy of these football results, please tag {{Doubt}} on the file description page. Teofilo (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's my business as an en:wp editor and admin to enforce en:wp policy over there: that's why I removed it. Moreover, the fact that it has an English caption makes it rather useless for projects in other languages, and the lack of sources for the data means that others are less likely to find it useful in non-Wikipedia projects even in English. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not our business at Wikimedia Commons to enforce other wikis' policies. Even if not suitable for the English Wikipedia, the picture might be useful for other non-wiki users. As far as I know that picture is within COM:SCOPE, like any table with data scanned from a book if these data provide knowledge about some topic. I don't see why these data should be less in COM:SCOPE than File:Cthelmet212.png, File:CTJERSEY2010.png and File:Ctlogo212.jpeg. Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, sorry for the caps lock issue...Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- pOLICY AT EN:wp SAYS THAT IMAGES SHOULD NOT BE USED WHEN A TABLE WILL SUFFICE: THIS IMAGE SHOULDN'T BE IN USE THERE, AND IT'S NOT IN USE ANYWHERE ELSE. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is used, so it is in scope. Teofilo (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- To the latter point, it's not a copyvio, but is it in scope? -- it's just a table of data. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Teofilo, the point is that it is against Commons policy to keep files that are all text, so it is out of scope, is it not? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
[off topic] See also https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27280 and please help if you have any helpful answer to that bug [/off topic]Teofilo (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is just that the bot hasn't yet gotten around to updating the usage. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all files. One might be old enough, but we don't know Jcb (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets
[edit]- Photographs of unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted characters
- Photographs of copyrighted characters (unknown if subjects are authorised reproductions)
- File:Paris Parade Navidad 2010-04.JPG
- File:Paris Parade Navidad 2010-06.JPG
- File:Paris Parade Navidad 2010-13.JPG: This is also nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris Parade Navidad 2010-13.JPG.
- File:Yip Yips at WonderCon 2009.JPG
- File:Les3G.JPG: This image would be out of scope even if we crop the Gonzo toy out of the image.
- No contest to this one, this is a useless image in any context. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Navidad2004-1-.jpg: This image would be out of scope even if we crop the muppets out of the image.
- No contest to this one, this is a useless image in any context. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Photographs of copyrighted characters
- File:Elmo.jpg
- File:Sesame Street Live Out of this World -2.jpg
- File:SmithsonianOscar.JPG
- File:Muppets being prepared for Smithsonian.jpg
- File:Patrick Murphy at Sesame Place 2.jpg
- File:Patrick Murphy at Sesame Place.jpg
- File:Queen rania and laura bush.jpg
- File:US Army 50731 Elmo Makes New Friends in Belgium.jpg
- File:US Army 50734 Elmo Dances in Belgium.jpg
- File:US Army 51798 Sesame Street-USO Experience for Military Children.jpg
- File:US Army 51289 Can U tell me how to get to Sesame Street.jpg
- File:US Army 51290 Can U tell me how to get to Sesame Street.jpg
- File:US Army 51291 Can U tell me how to get to Sesame Street.jpg
- File:US Army 52481 Sesame Street brings smiles to Wiesbaden youths.jpg
- File:US Army 52482 Sesame Street brings smiles to Wiesbaden youths.jpg
- File:US Army 52483 Sesame Street brings smiles to Wiesbaden youths.jpg
- File:US Army 52484 Sesame Street brings smiles to Wiesbaden youths.jpg
- File:US Army 52860 Sesame Street shows military children they're not alone.jpg
- File:US Army 53024 Fire Prevention Week.jpg
- File:US Navy 100121-N-5253W-001 A live production of The Sesame Street Experience is performed for families in the Benny Decker Theater at Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan.jpg
- File:US Navy 100413-N-0696M-257 Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, left, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen host a preview of the PBS special, When Families Grieve.jpg
- File:US Navy 100610-N-5516S-003 Sesame Street-USO Experience for Military Families tour performs in front of service members, friends and family.jpg
- File:Kami and jill biden.jpg
- File:Vanessa Williams and Elmo 2.jpg
- File:Vanessa Williams and Elmo.jpg: Williams's interaction with the muppet is the focus of the photograph, thus disqualifying potential claims of de minimis.
- File:Leiabox murray01.jpg
- File:Go2wu murray01.jpg
- File:Go2wu murray02.jpg
- File:Go2wu murray03.jpg
- File:Go2wu murray04.jpg
Jim Henson (and subsequent copyright owner, Henson Associates Inc or Childrens' Television Workshop, CTW) has been very protective over the copyrights of the Muppets.[9][10] They have won at least 2 cases that involvement derivatives of the Muppets (2D and 3D), and Sid s Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. has established it is still a copyright violation to create knock-offs (puppets/costumes) that are meant to imply a root to the original characters.[11] Without permission from CTW, the following photographs should be deleted per Commons:Derivative works ("If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?" and "If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?"). Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Toys and costumes are the modest percentage of the photos and not are always true copies of dolls used in the TV program. You should to every photo add individual the deletion requests. Some files originate from official pages sides of the American federal government. --Starscream 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, at the very least the top two per this. Apparently Wikipedia Attorney Mike Godwin said costumes are allowed. Ctjf83 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Ctjf's comments, except the two for which Nick Moreau says "No contest to this one". By definition, images created by employees of the US federal government in the course of their official duties are in the public domain; if the law says that they're PD, they can't be copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think there are two misconceptions here from the above responses (and it seems none of the above has read Commons:Derivative works).
- They are photographs taken by US government employees, so the muppets are not copyrighted.
- The photographs are indeed taken by government employees, but the subjects are not created by government employees. They are copyrighted materials. The photographs are derivatives of these copyrighted materials; although the photographs are in the public domain, the subject matter is not and deserves the consideration demanded as derivative works (per Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders? andCommons:Derivative works#If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?). As stated in US Copyright law § 103 (b):
The Muppets are copyrighted material regardless of whoever takes photographs of them. While the government and its employees can freely use copyrighted materials without permission in several cases (read the US Copyright law), they are not exempt from infringement if the items are used not within the government only or for commercial purposes per § 501 (a):The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
That is why government sites tend to have a non-commercial clause for use of their material (to address the copyrighted subject concern).Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
- The photographs are indeed taken by government employees, but the subjects are not created by government employees. They are copyrighted materials. The photographs are derivatives of these copyrighted materials; although the photographs are in the public domain, the subject matter is not and deserves the consideration demanded as derivative works (per Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders? andCommons:Derivative works#If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?). As stated in US Copyright law § 103 (b):
- Mike Godwin says costumes are okay.
- Godwin is correct when he says functional costumes cannot be copyrighted, but his words (which has basis in law) have been misinterpreted. Clothing are granted copyright protection because they are "useful items"; however, it also depends on whether there are copyrightable elements in the costumes.
"Clothing is a useful article, which means that clothing designers must satisfy the separability standard in order to obtain copyright protection. The Copyright Office considers Halloween costumes to be useful articles, as well, because they serve the dual purpose of clothing the body and portraying the appearance of something. However, the Copyright Office considers fanciful face masks not to be useful articles, since they have no inherent utility other than their appearances."[12]
Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By Pearl, Inc. held that the "ornamental elements of a belt buckle were protectable because they were conceptually distinct from the utilitarian function of the buckle."[14] Non-useful costumes (and non-useful elements of the costumes) are indeed copyrightable:"Fanciful costumes (like a Wookie costume) are also useful articles, subject to the separability analysis. But they will sometimes pass the separability test because they may have separable pictorial or sculptural elements."[13]
- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corporation won victory for the plaintiffs against the defendants, establishing the precedent that anthromorphic costumes are copyrightable.[15]
- Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc. 243 F.3d 789 (2001) found that the costume company unwillfully infringed the copyright of Barney the Dinosaur by producing two knockoff costumes.
- New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co. 161 F.Supp.2d 293 (2001) held that Freddy Krueger's copyright extended to his glove, of which the defendant was guilty of unwilfully making a knock-off (Ghostly Gasher), because it "was a component part of the character which significantly aids in identifying the character."
- If an article was designed on the basis of aesthetics than for utilitarian purposes, then separability is existent. The Muppets were designed first as puppets (controlled by human operators through hands, sticks, or mechanisms) with sculptural elements, not wearable costumes; hence the conceptual separability is more than fulfilled. This is more than demonstrated by the quoted case laws.
- As for parody, I believe the copyright exemption applies only to the makers of the parody and not to re-users of derivatives of their material. In any case, while File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg can be construed as a parody, File:MissPeggyGustavo.jpg does not (the latter has no intent to demonstrate certain ideas that is a parody of Kermit and Miss Piggy, but simply alludes to the nature of the copyrighted characters), per Lyons Partnership v. Giannoulas 179 F.3d 384 (5th Circ. 1999)[16].Jappalang (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Godwin is correct when he says functional costumes cannot be copyrighted, but his words (which has basis in law) have been misinterpreted. Clothing are granted copyright protection because they are "useful items"; however, it also depends on whether there are copyrightable elements in the costumes.
- They are photographs taken by US government employees, so the muppets are not copyrighted.
- So, is there no free license out there saying "the photo itself is free, but careful about the contents"? It would seem like these photos should have some sort of preferential treatment over a generic publicity photo for the series. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, we have templates that provide disclaimers for trademarks ({{trademark}}), official representations ({{insignia}}), and personality rights ({{Personality rights}}). These, however, deal with non-copyright issues. The concept of de minimis comes close to what you say, but it demands that the copyrighted subject is not the focus of the image and is minor in proportion or indistinct on the whole (which none of these photographs qualify). Unless we scrap the concept of Commons:Derivative works, I am not aware how these images should be kept while abiding case laws and project rules. Jappalang (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, is there no free license out there saying "the photo itself is free, but careful about the contents"? It would seem like these photos should have some sort of preferential treatment over a generic publicity photo for the series. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I see no reason why the Muppets are different from other characters, both solid, and cartoon. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This is Artandimage. The artist did NOT grant permission to put this image into the public domain. He granted permission for me to post it for Wikipedia purposes only. It must be removed! Help! Artandimage (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is Opendude42. Artandimage has attempted to remove the Help:Contents page. This has disabled users from using the Help pages. The image shoould be removed, but the page should not! Opendude42 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Kept: per Opendude42 McZusatz (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Bahnstrecke Weilheim-Schongau Karl432 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, of course I want the listed category file to be deleted (due to a mistype in its name), not the help file itself which I inspected only to see how I do this. I simply assumed that when I click "nominate for deletion" I had first to specify the file which I wand to be deleted. -- Karl432 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure): test nomination. darkweasel94 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No PLans To use This Page Richard Alexander Cadieux (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. ★ Poké95 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
i dont want to put this picture in common DgitalTechs (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. --Achim (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Democracy_Forum Diplik (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, no valid reason for deletion. --jdx Re: 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Personal photos Marcello Hughes (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Admins, please warn the DR opener seriously. --E4024 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
File: Slumber Party - Rebels in Pinkville - 2018.jpg Arik Mirondo (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Iglesia_del_Sagrado_Coraz%C3%B3n_Jiquilpan_Michoac%C3%A1n.jpg Jackie RGarcia (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept, the photo of the church is not a reason to delete Help:Contents. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Pexels-photo-3772623.jpg Franz.zilvah (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep (non-admin closure): Nonsense nom. Why this page is nominated for some many times... Stang★ 02:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Imagen con copyright de www.celvisio.com , autor Vicent Ventura 88.2.217.152 09:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ha sido extraida de mi cuenta en Google Earth, con nombre de autor vivenca, con identificación de imagen ID: 34298270, y ha sido hecha personalmente por mí en mi empresa celvicio.com, www.celvisio.com en la que figura expresamente su autorización de uso sin modificación para fines no comerciales, citando su fuente de origen, y no atribuyéndose la autoría como se ha hecho.
Como prueba, podemos mostrar la fotografía original realizada el día 12 de octubre de 2009 a las 10,18 horas con una Canon Poweshot G-10, a 4416 x 3312 pixels, tanto en su formato RAW (CR2) como en su conversión JPG en calidad sin pérdidas, y varias panorámicas en las que se ha integrado la imagen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.217.152 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
soles amb un email haveres pogut canviar l'autor... jo ja l'he canviat, sols volia afegir informació del poble i no em fixe amb l'autor, pero t'entenc perfectament. no l'he tret del google earth, si no d'una web de fotos publiques, ho dic per si et torna a pasar. salutacions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.53.154 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteI would delete this because the source site has an explicit (C), but the machine translation of the last comment is unreadable and I'm reluctant to delete without knowing what our colleague said. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: - por favor envíanos un permiso desde celvisio.com a OTRS - Jcb (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Also concerns
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 10:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM. Esby (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the sculpture is De Minimis, but the architecture is not. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- the building inclusion is factual, the main subject is constitued by the flags. The building behind is only an accessory here. Perfectly according to the corresponding jurisprudence. (Place des Terreaux). Esby (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the intention of the photographer had been to show the flags, he would have called the picture "flags something". Instead he calls the picture "Institutions européennes". So the purpose of the photographer is to show the buildings where the European leaders meet. The buildings are the most important part of the picture. The flags are little details. Teofilo (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is just your sole interpretation.
- The 'Institution européenes' is not used to label a particular building but all european institutions. They are not located at the same place:
- European parliament in Strasbourg.
- Council of the European Union in Bruxels.
- Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
- European Comission in Bruxels.
- European Central Bank in Frankfurt.
- Court of Auditors in Luxembourg.
- Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.
- Now the flags of the european union are indeed a symbol of these instance; what ever are their locations.
- They are placed at the center of each picture, and the building behind them is not really relevant.
- Esby (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the intention of the photographer had been to show the flags, he would have called the picture "flags something". Instead he calls the picture "Institutions européennes". So the purpose of the photographer is to show the buildings where the European leaders meet. The buildings are the most important part of the picture. The flags are little details. Teofilo (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for building......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "No FoP for building in France" ? ok. But buildings of european institutions are not under the french law, even in Strasbourg. Extraterritoriality, like embassies or other diplomatic buildings.--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are they ? fr:Ambassade says L'extraterritorialité des ambassades est une fiction juridique abandonnée au XIXe siècle : extraterritoriality of embassies is a legal fiction abandoned in the 19th century. That means that if a murder is commited inside the US embassy in Paris in the 21st century, the murderer will be sued by a French judge and French law will apply to that case. See also this article about the Swiss ambassy in Libya (where Libyan law applies, although the Libyan police cannot enter). That's the difference between extraterritorialité and inviolabilité. Teofilo (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 copied from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wwii normandy american cemetary.jpg. Moreover, I guess that the EU parliament in Strasbourg is not even covered by "inviolabilité" like an embassy. It is inhabited by European MPs, not by embassadors. Teofilo (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I was wrong (too speedy) and you are right regarding the status of the embassies, the comparison was not good. However I maintain that buildings of international institutions (ex.: UNO in New-York, then UNESCO in Paris, or EU buildings in Strasbourg), are under an extraterritorial status. Did you really try to make criminal investigations under the national law in such a building ? In our case, the question is : can we free upload pictures of this building in "Commons" ? I think yes, because the "no freedom of panorama in France" does not apply in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- What is important is where the picture was taken, not where the building is. That's the classic question: what is happening when I take a photograph from Switzerland of an object permanently located in France. Anyway, my rational is still that the 'Institution européennes' does not stand for the building but for the flags of the european nation here. Would the intent had been to show the building, there could have been better pictures to make here. Esby (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot speak to the EU buildings, but there is no extraterritoriality at the UN:
- "The United Nations enjoys immunity and special privileges according to the headquarters agreement of 26 June 1947, but they hold no sovereignty over the UN compound in New York. Per article III section 7b, ‘except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.’" (from a comment by User:Jastrow at Commons:Deletion_requests/UN_Art_Collection).
- I would be very surprised if a special copyright law applied for the EU buildings. Remember that FOP is a special exception to the general rule that copyright applies to architecture, so for the extra-territoriality argument to have any effect you would have to prove that the EU rule included FOP for architecture. The EU Directive on Copyright says that member states may provide FOP for architecture and sculpture. It says nothing about the EU itself providing FOP for its buildings. 24.147.138.146 15:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- What is important is where the picture was taken, not where the building is. That's the classic question: what is happening when I take a photograph from Switzerland of an object permanently located in France. Anyway, my rational is still that the 'Institution européennes' does not stand for the building but for the flags of the european nation here. Would the intent had been to show the building, there could have been better pictures to make here. Esby (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe it's de minimis per COM:FOP#France. The building is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (i.e. the flags), and inclusion of it was unavoidable. The second picture is a less clear case, but cropped version of it likely will be ok as well. Trycatch (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: DM, though the second may be borderline Jcb (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Info all deleted by this deletion request. Non-admin comment by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The file name should be "經衣". Kanashimi 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Tartu City Government images
[edit]64 images and tag per template talk – permission is Wikimedia only and images are consequently non-free. The permission made public here and checked by native speaker OTRS user and as I can also approve exactly says /.../ to illustrate Tartu related articles /.../ (in Tartu related articles). If the permission has been given to Wikipedia user this presumably refers to articles of Wikipedia. Consequently the permission is even narrower than non-free "Wikimedia only", which another user in previously refered talk found OK for Commons, but I don't see how. This another user also demands someone to contact the city again, but I don't see a reason to do so as their websait already says: "The use of these photos is only allowed with a permission of Tartu City Government Office", so they can't say anything similar to text in tag (free to use for anyone and without further permission to consider images as free).
Images and 1 template nominated:
- File:Aadu_Must_2010-02-23.jpg
- File:Aadu_Must_23_veebruar_2004.jpg
- File:Aarne_Saluveer_2009_laulupidu.jpg
- File:Ain-Elmar_Kaasik_2004-02-23.jpg
- File:Alo_Ritsing_2004-02-23.jpg
- File:Andres_Veerpalu_2006-02-27.jpg
- File:Andrus_Ansip_2010-06-29.jpg
- File:Andrus_Ansip_in_2010.png
- File:Ants_Laaneots_3_septembril_2006.jpg
- File:Barclay_de_Tolly_monument_Tartus.jpg
- File:Concert_in_Tartu_Jaani_Church_2010-12-11,_2.jpg
- File:Concert_in_Tartu_Jaani_Church_2010-12-11.jpg
- File:Dominique_Mamberti_2009-09-03.jpg
- File:Eija-Liisa_Löyttyniemi.jpg
- File:Eija-Liisa_Löyttyniemi_2.jpg
- File:Einasto_&_Ansip.jpg
- File:Ernst_von_Bergmann_Memorial.jpg
- File:Evald_Rooma.jpg
- File:Helju_Vals_2010-12-10.jpg
- File:Henn_Käämbre_2010-02-23.jpg
- File:Hirvo_Surva_2009_laulupidu.jpg
- File:Indrek_Hirv_2009-10-22.jpg
- File:Jaak_Aaviksoo_24_oktoobril_2006.jpg
- File:Jaak_Kikas_2010-06-29.jpg
- File:Jaan_Einasto_23_veebruar_2004.jpg
- File:Jaan_Sööt_2009.jpg
- File:Juhan_Parts_23_veebruaril_2004.jpg
- File:Jüri_Kärner_2009.jpg
- File:Jüri_Sasi_2006.jpg
- File:Kivisild_postcard.jpg
- File:Kristina_Šmigun-Vähi_2006.jpg
- File:Laine_Jänes_2009-09-07.jpg
- File:Laine_Jänes_23_septembril_2004.jpg
- File:Logo_01_tartu.PNG
- File:Mait_Klaassen_2009-09-07.jpg
- File:Margus_Hanson.jpg
- File:Mart_Siimann_2009-09-07.jpg
- File:Mehis_Heinsaar_2010-10-14.jpg
- File:Puusild_Laia_ja_Vene_t_joonel.jpg
- File:Puusild_ja_Lai_t_ots.jpg
- File:Raivo_Adlas_2010-06-29.jpg
- File:Richard_Villems_&_Jaan_Einasto.jpg
- File:Salemi_kirik_Tartus.jpg
- File:Tanel_Jonas_Vanapagan.jpg
- File:Tantsuansambel_Tarbatu_2009.jpg
- File:Tartu_Akadeemiline_Meeskoor_2009.jpg
- File:Tartu_Kivisild.jpg
- File:Tartu_asumid.png
- File:Tartu_linnaosad.svg
- File:Tartu_logo-en.svg
- File:Tartu_logo-et.svg
- File:Toomas_Hendrik_Ilves_2010-02-02.jpg
- File:Turusilla_projekteerijad.jpg
- File:Tõnis_Lukas_2009-09-07.jpg
- File:Urmas_Kruuse_2007_1.jpg
- File:Urmas_Kruuse_2010-02-23.jpg
- File:Urmas_Paet_22_novembril_2006.jpg
- File:Vabaduse_sild,_Puusild_1826-1923.jpg
- File:Vabaduse_sild_1.jpg
- File:Vabaduse_sild_2.jpg
- File:Vabaduse_sild_2009.jpg
- File:Vabaduse_sild_3.jpg
- File:Vabadussildv.jpg
- File:Vaike_Uibopuu_2009_laulupidu.jpg
- Template:Attr-Tartu
A couple of images, however, might have their copyright expired, but I'm unable to clarify their actual status. 193.40.10.181 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The email states, in an English translation "We agree that the use of Tartu homepage http://www.tartu.ee images in Tartu related articles illustration." It does not say in the email that is Wikimedia only. There is nothing with regards to derivative works or anything like that in the email, but I am not even sure where some of the users are getting Wikimedia only if the email does not state such things. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just thought I'm more clear when I refer to corresponding item of COM:L. Apparently I'm not? To be more precise pictures are non-free because they are for use in Tartu related articles only (which should fall under "Wikimedia only"). You are not trying to say that "use in (only) Tartu related articles [of Wikipedia]" is free while "use in only Wikimedia projects" isn't, are you? 193.40.10.181 17:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am going by what the actual email text was. I saw nothing about Wikimedia only (but then I didn't see anything about restrictions of reuse, didn't see anything about derivative works). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, the permission (e-mail forwarded to OTRS) doesn't say "Wikimedia only" word by word. I never claimed that it does. So? Being "Wikimedia only" still is what "to illustrate Tartu related articles" (for use in certain articles of Wikipedia, which is a Wikimedia project) more or less means. No specifications on derivative works, wasn't the case either (is non-free for other reason). Reusing on the other hand is restricted. Permission has been granted for Wikipedia to use pictures in its articles. If it was free to use for everyone, they wouldn't claim on their website (see link above) that the permission is still needed. 193.40.10.181 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are a lot of times website claims and what has been given to us are very different (and thus the need of permissions like this). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet, the permission in question makes perfect sense and is in accordance with statement on website. As I understand it just isn't kind of permission which puts images under free license (only allows their use in certain Wikipedia articles). 193.40.10.181 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are a lot of times website claims and what has been given to us are very different (and thus the need of permissions like this). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, the permission (e-mail forwarded to OTRS) doesn't say "Wikimedia only" word by word. I never claimed that it does. So? Being "Wikimedia only" still is what "to illustrate Tartu related articles" (for use in certain articles of Wikipedia, which is a Wikimedia project) more or less means. No specifications on derivative works, wasn't the case either (is non-free for other reason). Reusing on the other hand is restricted. Permission has been granted for Wikipedia to use pictures in its articles. If it was free to use for everyone, they wouldn't claim on their website (see link above) that the permission is still needed. 193.40.10.181 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am going by what the actual email text was. I saw nothing about Wikimedia only (but then I didn't see anything about restrictions of reuse, didn't see anything about derivative works). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just thought I'm more clear when I refer to corresponding item of COM:L. Apparently I'm not? To be more precise pictures are non-free because they are for use in Tartu related articles only (which should fall under "Wikimedia only"). You are not trying to say that "use in (only) Tartu related articles [of Wikipedia]" is free while "use in only Wikimedia projects" isn't, are you? 193.40.10.181 17:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
DeleteAccording to the US rules of construction, the statement:
- "We agree that the use of Tartu homepage http://www.tartu.ee images in Tartu related articles illustration."
must be read,
- "We [license the specified images] for use only in articles related to Tartu."
because the rule is that if you specify something in the particular, then you eliminate more general things. So I read this to mean that they may be used only in WP articles related to Tartu -- there is no permission for Commons at all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)