This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As noted in the deletion request for the parent file explicitly states that it contains copywritten material. This image is simply a derivative of a popular AP photo where the back ground has been altered. This image should be a speedy delete. 70.112.191.20710:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the FBI report is published without any legal objections to U.S. policy under copyright picture is published under a free license. therefore, must necessarily remain in our resources Grzegorz Artur Górski (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly taken from a bin Laden video--not taken by a US government employee. It doesn't matter whether there were any objections. --GrapedApe (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some people are under the impression that PD-USGov covers all images found on US government sites but this is wrong because the sites sometimes obtain images from 3rd parties for their own usage only as is the case with this file. We need to know who the actual author or owner is and verify if they have given permission.--Officer (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader is plainly not the copyright holder, so at best this needs a new license. It's probably PD, but we need to know that it was actually published before 1923 -- if it has just been in a family album until recently, then it's still (c). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted: as uploader additionally claimed "account has been hacked. user poiureqanz has never uploaded this photo. nor is he its author." Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Because it, and its half-dozen companion images (I only tagged two for deletion to test the waters), aren't being used in articles and don't seem to serve any other purpose other than the fact that they're licensed as CC-BY. They were tagged {{Remove border}} and I was cleaning the backlog up when I realized I'm doing work on images that aren't even used. So I could either let someone else work on them, or tag them to be removed. I understand it's nice to have a "library", but these images look pretty pointless, no matter what. Just my opinion, though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These images combine some serious artistic value with historic significance. That is more, much more, than many images that we store on Commons for the legitimate reason that Commons is a repository of Free images. Commons is not only a "service project for Wikipedia". That an image would not be used in an article is not really relevant to its acceptability here. In this perspective, I find your Deletion Request really odd. Rama (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my mistake, I misunderstood the purpose of nominating for deletion on a historically significant image. I'll withdraw the nomination rather than let it take up everyone's time. I've withdrawn the other image as well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Actually, I just tagged the wrong image; the link I put is for a different image just uploaded to en.wiki. I still believe this to be a copyright (it appears to be a screen capture of a television show), but it's not unambiguous. I am unclear of what procedure to follow at this point (do we just AGF this highly dubious "own work")? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY(TALK)06:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepObvious Keep. Obviously as the source image for the JPG it would be kept. Absolutely no reason to delete just because the wiki thumb-nailing software can't render it --Tony Wills (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright status of work by the U.S. government states that works produced by contractors under government contracts... are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law The official website asserts that the current logo is copyrighted by the Center for Outdoor Ethics. Given the somewhat dubious origin of the image, shouldn't this image be protected by copyright for the same reason? Banaticus (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If not PD-USGov, then PD-textlogo. The circle, dot, and words are obvious, and the spirals, while more complicated, still qualify as "simple geometric shapes." -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable example of how inclusive PD-ineligible is would be File:Best Western logo.svg, which the U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly rejected. I don't think the candycanes are much more complex than the crown. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY(TALK)06:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY(TALK)06:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader claimed the source was "Photographer of Sri Chinoy Centre" so I asked for evidence of permission on March 17 but received no response. Hekerui (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I took it myself with a minolta camera at the American Jewish Congress' annual conference in 2006. The picture is a cropped version of the original which had the heads of people in attendance. This is not a phony picture and it is all my own work. --Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence for being a copyvio. Surely the image shows compression artifacts, that are typical for strong jpg compression, but not for a scan from print. The unambiguous statement "This picture was taken by Juda Engelmayer and posted for use on WikiCommons" posted by the uploader only hours after this DR was filed, makes it additionally unlikely that this is a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Also, I wanna know don't we have "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page using" like criteria for speedy deletion? because I don't wanna to add this one on my deleted record. Bill william comptonTalk12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: To your question -- yes, we can show that as the reason if you ask -- it takes several steps, while a routine DR close takes only one, so we do it only if asked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The only purpose of this file was a German wikibook "Einstieg in die Ameisenhaltung" that is deleted by now. -- Juetho (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Quelle stimmt nicht, außerdem kann das FBI nicht Urheber des Fotos sein. Die Veränderungen (Alterung) allein haben keine Schöpfungshöhe Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source is not true, the FBI can not also be the author of the photo. The changes (aging) alone have no threshold of originality
translator: Google
Urheber dieses und eines vergleichbaren Bildes scheint sehr wohl das FBI zu sein: Die Aufnahmen wurden am 14. Januar 2010 von dieser US-amerikanischen Bundesbehörde veröffentlicht. Auch haben die Veränderungen (Alterung) durchaus eine gehörige Schöpfungshöhe. Das Bild zeigt nämlich gar nicht Bin Laden selbst. Vielmehr ist es eine Collage aus Gesichtern anderer Personen, etwa dem des spanischen Politikers Gaspar Llamazares. Das Bild sollte daher keinesfalls gelöscht werden, wohl aber sollten in der Abbildungsbeschreibung diese Informationen hinzugefügt werden.
(Quelle: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,672390,00.html)
User: Alexis Dworsky, 2 May 2011
Perpetrators of this and a similar picture seems to be very well the FBI: The images on 14 January 2010 by this U.S. federal agency published. Also, the changes (aging) associated creation quite a height. The picture shows that is not Bin Laden himself is rather a collage of faces of other people, such as that of the Spanish politician Gaspar Llamazares. The image should not be deleted, but in the figure description, this information should be added.
translator: Google
Keep Es ist ein Fahndungsfoto und solche Fotos sind zur Veröffentlichung gedacht. Nichts anderes wird hier getan. Also behalten. --Usien (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mug shot and those photos are intended for publication. Nothing else is happening here. So keep them.
I'm sure somebody will translate it. Post this page on the village pump, or the German forum, or find somebody to translate it WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I`m en-0, its no enouth to discuss here in english. Die Aussagen von Alexis kannte ich noch nicht, das würde das alles natürlich ändern. Fahndungsfotos beinhalten übrigens keine Aussage zum Urheberrecht, mit ihnen wird nur das Recht am eigenen Bild ausgehebelt. Urheberrecht bleibt jedoch bestehen, auch in Ländern wie Afghanistan oder Pakistan. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statements by Alexis I never knew that things would change course. Mug shots by the way include any statement about copyright, with them only the right to their own image undermined. Copyright remains, however, even in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Keep Even without translating the link above, the article still gives credit to the FBI as making the aged photo. So unless i am missing something, what exactly is the problem? DragonFire1024 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image alteration may have been made by FBI personnel but with images of unknown source thus we have to assume it contains non-free content and it has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "be no righteous overmuch" (Ecclesiastes 7,16) (or maybe that quote also should be deleted for suspected copyright violation). Oyoyoy (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (the original author(s) of the source image(s) used by the FBI are unknown). Besides, the story of this and related images has even made it into the news, and the FBI has subsequently chosen to remove them from its website (see en:Gaspar Llamazares). --Prüm (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ds02006 -- While English is our lingua franca, Commons policy assumes that we will work in whatever languages are available and convenient. The Google translations (which I have provided above) are mostly good enough to get the gist of any argument, although not good enough for subtleties of copyright law. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: It is well known that the FBI often uses photos without regard for copyright -- after all, if a person is wanted by the FBI, it is likely that the FBI did not take the photo. This is certainly a derivative work of an image for which we have no copyright information. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
IMHO, the artistic input is beyond the threshold of originality. (Please check the file history and talk page.) ~ →Spiritia17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
While this image would be public domain in Canada if it were created in Canada, we don't actually know where it was taken. Given that the subject is wearing the jersey of the Detroit Red Wings, there is a very good possibility that it was taken in the U.S., in which case we would need to know a lot more about the photographer and the circumstances of its publication. I couldn't find the image on the Hockey Hall of Fame website (legendsofhockey.net), not even a reference number that would allow us to email the HHOF to see if they have additional information. Given that there is a good chance that this image is not Canadian and is copyright in the U.S., policy would dictate that it be deleted, unless someone (hopefully) can fill in some of the blanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. The HHOF site has no further details about the photo, except that perhaps its from the 1947-48 season. So the concerns I raised above still stand. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the Red Kelly gallery on legends of hockey It does appear to be Quackenbush, there are a couple of images that do not load in Quackenbush's gallery it's possible that this image is one of those. However, with out knowing and not having a reference number I don't think that any more information can be found on this image and it's looking like it will need to be deleted.--Leech44 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is also this photo which shows some photograph of a women (couldnt find the image with tineye): File:Escher_museum.jpg - but at least we can see that the "Day and night" is not permanent.
I can retouch the image to blank the canvas if there is agreement that the original version is not allowed. Saibo (Δ) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be - but this is not Escher's (heirs) problem. This is ours. In addition the advertising is avoidable: as proposed I can simply retouch the canvas to blank it out. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo of the building, not a reproduction of someone else's problem. It's not really avoidable, because a blank surface creates a hole in the image. Personally, I think it's negligible. Obviously one mustn't crop it. -- Docu at01:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a photo of an art museum. And this photo really is much nicer with a sample of the artwork which is inside. Therefore I really do not see this as de minimis. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a de minimis sample at Commons is a cinema with an Indiana Jones poster. BTW, the woman you mention above is the queen. -- Docu at08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Background: The original photograph, with the same filename, was deleted because a copyrighted work was displayed on the building and shown in the photograph. As mentioned above, a version with the banner blanked was created (File:Paleis_lange_voorhout-banner_blanked.jpg) to retain an image of the building itself in Commons. This seems like an acceptable, least-worst solution. The version now proposed for deletion, with the Wikimedian's original Commons art (File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg) placed into the white space, is inappropriate. --JN46622:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed that we also have a photograph of the building without any advertising banner at all: File:Escher_Museum.jpg. This being so, I don't think the version with the blanked banner is needed either. --JN46623:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speculation of uses that would be deceptive is irrelevant, the image page clearly describes the changes, and the reasons for those changes. The linked page about image guidelines was created specifically for "featured pictures" and "quality images", and even there these are not prescriptions, they are guidelines, and definitely not policy anywhere. Whether there are other images of the same subject is also irrelevant, we normally have lots of images of the same subject, often more than one being used in the same article, often different wikis use different views of the same subject. At any instant most images on Commons are not in use on any wiki. (Perhaps I should suggest that images of the building with no advertising banner attached are deceptive as there is a banner there these days ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is deceptive, and I can see no other reason for a contributor placing their own image as though it had been displayed on a public building than self-promotion. An editor might as well Photoshop their face on to a man in a red carpet shot, next to that of a famous actress. It does not aid the Foundation's educational mission in any way. --JN46611:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The weirdest image I've seen, really, and a deceptive one, too. If one doesn't want to show copyrighted work on a building, one simply blurs or airbrushes it. I have to agree with the poster above - here is a blatant self-promotion. Ari Linn (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a useable image, there is no reason to use a deceptive image. Even clearly labeling the substitution on the photo itself would not be workable because who would want to use such a photo in an article, etc? And it would be a precedent for all sorts of foolishness, like me putting my face on the Statute of Liberty and clearly labeling it as such and uploading it. (Unless of course it became a famous art photo or something. ;-) Carolmooredc (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNew stadium being built in New YorkIf I see a photo of a building with an advertising banner on it, what am I expecting it to contain? If I go there and find it has a different illustration than I thought do I think I was deceived? Photographs are not reality, photographs are subjective, photographs show the subject as the photographer chooses (just like artists do with paintings) - photos are edited or staged. Photographs can be used to deceive eg "New stadium being built in New York", but if their description clearly states what they are of, they are not deceptive in themselves.
The deletion/undeletion history of the image clearly shows why the banner image was replaced. It is the most natural thing to use one of ones own images (where you can be sure of the long term copyright status and ensure it is compatible with the image you are merging it with) when making such a change. If an image is an FP and subsequently POTD, this additional use is hardly extra promotion. I stated on the user's talk page that I don't think it was the best image for this purpose as limits its use. But as an illustration of the Palace (which currently happens to house the Escher museum) it is a quite useable image. The editted photograph illustrates how the building looks with an advertising banner taking up aprox 1/10th of the photograph. I makes a visually attractive image at normal viewing distances and sizes used on wiki pages, certainly better than the visual dissonance created by a straight blanking of the original artwork.
We normally keep many different images of the same subject, differently sourced, differently licensed, differently editted. This aids our educational purposes by allowing wikis to choose between a number of alternative images of the subject for illustration purposes, we don't decide which is the best for any particular purpose, that is up to the participating wikis. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most natural thing to use one of ones own images
This is a very silly point. A solid colour rectangle over the offending portion of the image is the surest way to ensure the long-term copyright availability of the image. Lankiveil (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I'm sure the Escher museum would love to see this! What exactly is the educational purpose of this and how does it fit into Commons educational mission? It's a joke that people actually think this serves an educational purpose by displaying itself on the Escher museum to show how banners are displayed on the facilities exterior. Missvain (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with other arguments above to delete. If you want to remove the advertising banner on a museum's facade, make it blank; don't advertise your own work as a form of affiliation with a cultural institution. Jgmikulay (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a museum professional, I'd much rather have the blank banner than having a Commons users artwork, let alone something totally unrelated to the mission of the Escher museum. Sometimes imaginations are meant to be used, and I find it hard to believe that the creator of this second image, the creator of the artwork itself, was doing it as a charity to Wikimedia Commons. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they don't, do you think it is ethical for us to misrepresent them, and to deceive our readers/viewers? --JN46623:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see anything "unethical" here. Also our readers/viewers are not deceived. It is clearly labeled as an edited (with specific details what has been edited) photo. If this would be used - for example - in an Wikipedia (but remember: Commons is not an Wikipedia image store) article, of course, the image subtitle should reflect that, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bona-fide point serving other projects or commercial re-users. We have an image of the building, without banner, as well as one with the banner blanked. --JN46600:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's just bizarre that you think it's "ethical". This is just one of the many concerns that institutions dread when it comes to open-source and Wikimedia - images of their objects, buildings, etc, being utilized for things like this. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that that image was created as a part of a discussion on the strategy wiki, I think the answer to the question is "Yes, it does have a useful purpose". Lankiveil (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This rationale makes no sense, unless half of the images on Commons are pictures of museums with hentai images plastered across them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Not everyone does, and that doesn't mean that anyone is any lower on the food chain here or any less cultured, not everyone in the Wiki world is into anime/manga/lord forbid.."cartoons". Missvain (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely better to choose your words right and not to use something as an argument that you don't even know. I won't cite Dieter Nuhr in this case, but it could be an good start to begin with. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to view that comment as a piece of performance art, rather than a contribution to the discussion. --JN46613:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Out of scope and potentially misleading. It's a good work indeed, when I looked at it for the first time, without seeing this discussion, I thought for a moment that for some reason the Niabot artwork (which I knew from a rather unfortunate attempt of censorship when it was POTD) was displayed in that building.--DarwinAhoy!03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guidelines are clear - images which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of scope. The Niabot picture is unrealted to the Escher museum, and so doesn't provide any educative information. A better solution were provided by the blanked version. A certain tolerance generally exists but in this case, Niobot weren't entitled to squat the old photo filename to force his custom artwork display. --Dereckson (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Marked as an image from a calendar (google confirms and finds it all over the blog-world and fan-sites)...no evidence uploader owns the rights to release it DMacks (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted: Non-commercial/NoDerivative licenses are noit free use licenses for the purpose of the Commons Avi (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
La Bibliothèque royale de Belgique se réserve tous droits de reproduction et de diffusion de la version en haute résolution de ce document. Comme vous le savez, la Wikimedia Foundation commercialise le contenu image qu'elle héberge mais qu'elle ne produit pas. La Bibliothèque royale diffuse gratuitement en ligne à partir de son catalogue et de manière sécurisée ce type de document. Par ailleurs, elle le commercialise également et est seule en droit de le faire. La Bibliothèque royale de Belgique (l'Etat belge) est propriétaire de ce document qui date (version numérique) de 2006. Si vous souhaitez continuer à utiliser ce document, merci de publier une version en basse résolution et de faire un lien vers le catalogue de la Bibliothèque royale à l'adresse http://opteron1.kbr.be/cgi-bin/opac.cgi?P0=FKBR&P1=1_JAN&P9=&P5=20&P4=&P2=4&P3=R_BBH&P6=67_1547208 . Ce lien héberge la notice descriptive du document que vous avez publié. Le document en haute résolution n'est actuellement pas lié à cette notice. Il le sera bientôt. Pour plus d'information, veuillez contacter la Bibliothèque. Merci de votre compréhension. Benoît Pigeon, Service Cartes & Plans, Bibliothèque royale de Belgique Gothance (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a machine translation of the above text: Reason For the deletion request: The Royal Library reserves all rights of reproduction and distribution of high-resolution version of this document. As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation markets the image content it hosts, but it does not. The Royal Library's free online broadcast from its catalog and secure this type of document. Moreover, it also markets and is only entitled to do so. The Royal Library of Belgium (the Belgian government) owns the record that (digital version) 2006. If you want to continue using this document, thank you publish a version in low resolution and make a link to the catalog of the Royal Library at http://opteron1.kbr.be/cgi-bin/opac.cgi ? P0 = P1 = 1_JAN FKBR & P9 & = & P5 = P4 = 20 & & & P2 = 4 P3 = P6 = & R_BBH 67_1547208. This link is hosting the descriptive document that you published. High resolution document is currently not linked to this record. It will be soon. For more information, please contact the Library. Thank you for your understanding. Benoît Pigeon Service Plans & Maps, Royal Library of Belgium
Keep In het Belgisch wetboek, staat bij de "Wet betreffende het auteursrecht en de naburige rechten." van 30 JUNI 1994, in hoofdstuk 1, afdeling 1, artikel 2, paragraaf 5 hetvolgende:
De beschermingstermijn van foto's die oorspronkelijk zijn, in de zin dat zij een eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur zijn, wordt (vastgesteld) overeenkomstig de voorgaande paragrafen.. [5]
De Belgische federale overheid verduidelijkt dit op haar website [6]. Ik, citeer:
Worden daarentegen niet beschermd door het auteursrecht: wat uitsluitend door een machine wordt voortgebracht (zoals bijvoorbeeld satellietbeelden).
Ik denk dat het dan ook duidelijk is dat ook naar Belgisch recht het louter digitaal inscannen van een document uit het publiek domein geen nieuw auteursrecht impliceert.
Uiteraard willen wij wel vrijwillig een koppeling naar de informatie op uw website leggen.
Info For English speakers: User:Gothance claims that the Royal Library of Belgium owns the copyright of the file above because they own and scanned the 17th century map. I claim that corresponding to Belgian law (and US law), making a digital scan of a Public domain document does not generate a new copyright. Donarreiskoffer (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The imposed 'regulations' are invalid; a scan of a public domain map is public domain. Additionally, there is a prohibition against attaching a fraudulent copyright notice to any work, including public domain works...this seems borderline. theMONO00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Had a no-permission-tag without any explanation, so I removed it some time ago when working through that backlog. Now was made aware on my talkpage that the reason for the tag could have been that there is a discrepancy between the EXIF and the description (camera type) which leads to the doubt that this is really own work. -- Cecil (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Had a no-permission-tag without any explanation, so I removed it some time ago when working through that backlog. Now was made aware on my talkpage that the reason for the tag could have been that there is a discrepancy between the EXIF and the description (camera type) which leads to the doubt that this is really own work. -- Cecil (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The cover of the report indicates that it contains copywritten material. The cover image in particular should be assumed to be removed as it is a derivative of a prominent associated press photo. The document should most likey be fully deleted; Without this coversheet the segment of the document uploaded here is simply a table of contents to a report not found here and seems of marginal value - if users feel those other pages are of value then a new version of the report should be uploaded minus the infringing coversheet. Solid State Survivor (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 272 page report, of which only the table of contents is uploaded to Commons because the rest of the report may contain copyrighted material, and that is why I didnt upload the rest of it. Many items in this report are not copyright due to the lack of any applicable copyright law or treaty, but that is a separate matter. Even without the contents, this TOC is a useful index of information about Usama Bin Ladin, and it is being transcribed on Wikisource. I can also remove the photo. John Vandenberg(chat)10:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the table of contents has value in and of itself then I suppose deletion is not necasary. However, the cover photo is certainly a derivative of a copywritten one and a new version of the document minus that photo should be uploaded as soon as possible. Solid State Survivor (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re the photo, I don't doubt you for a second, but I would be most grateful if you can provide any information (asset id, etc) or URLs to show it is an AP photo. I'll pull out the image in a few days; I want to wait to see if there are any other concerns about this document, such as it being a leaked document. John Vandenberg(chat)10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, This site[7] credits the parent image explicitely to the AP. I have no reason to doubt that claim as I have seen that image printed innumerable times in many newspapers. Solid State Survivor (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cant claim to know if they did it themselves or if photohop was the tool used. But Im certain it is a derivative image since it overlaps precisely with the AP image in my photo editing software. I think it looks different from the AP image because the colors are so blown out on it (maybe from overcopying or printer quality) the white of his eyes and mouth are minimized amking it seem different. Also - that background certainly isnt natural. Solid State Survivor (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no proof that the image in question in deed is a derivative of a prominent associated press photo, the pamphlet does not contain a source notice on the image, therefor it must be believed that the image was taken by a government employe. In fact also the AP (and other agencies) are publishing not properly sourced government images in their image pool because of they're are in the PD. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have heard about what US government employees did with Osama bin Laden when they found him, right? They didn't make him pose for photos. It's rather unlikely that it was taken by a US government employee – at least if it was taken after the 1980s. —LX (talk, contribs)09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Don't wire services routinely add public domain images to their libraries? I come across images in wire services' libraries that I know, for a certain fact, should be {{PD-USGov}}. I think it is a serious mistake for us to assume that since an image is in a wire services' library the wire services is the owner of the intellectual property rights to that image. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, wire service' routinely add public domain images to their libraries. Nominator claims that this image is an AP image, because they saw it credited to the AP in one publication. So I ask them to explain why the image is credited to the library of the Reuters wire service. Here it is credited to the library of the GETTY wire service. Here it is credited to the libary of the AFP wire service. Here it is credited to the library of the SCANPIX wire service. I suggest the reason we find this image in the libraries of multiple wire services is that it is a public domain image, so any wire service is entitled to add it to their library. The tineye service found over 1000 uses of this image. I found the image credited to almost half a dozen different wire services within the first 20 instances of the image. Geo Swan (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be that the photo agencies have the business analysis that, even if the photo is copyrighted, the copyright is probably held by some member of al-Qaeda (a slightly more likely photographer than a US government employee, as speculated above), making it so unlikely that they would be successfully sued that the benefits outweigh the risks. That's not how we work, though. Simply put, public domain status cannot be inferred from a work being widely distributed. We don't have a {{PD-widely-circulated}}. {{PD-USGov}} seems highly unlikely. {{PD-Afghanistan}} is plausible, but the photo is just as likely to have been taken in Pakistan. —LX (talk, contribs)09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is the duty of those in favor of keeping the file to proof that is in pd (multiple agencies is just a hint), not the other way round. If you want to have a file on Commons, it is you who has to make sure that it applies to the rules. And I don't see a proof for pd of Osama's photo yet. Who exactly is the photographer and when did he release his photo into public domain?--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Derivative work of a copyrighted work. Th U.S. government has the power to use terrorists' images on their websites, if required they can pay to have this done. But here in Commons we have a strict policy which requires permission from the original author/owner.--Officer (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: no reason to suppose the cover image to be free, feel free to upload a version without that image. If necessary I'm willing to temporary undelete the file, so that you can download it to edit it Jcb (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It appears to be one of several pictures from the Swedish Café Magazine (Category:Magazine Café) originating, not from the link you give above, but from a now-closed Flickr account. The image page actually says this; it links to the now-deleted Flickr page, not to the page you linked above. It also appears that these pictures were available under a CC-BY license at the time. In this case and some others, the license was confirmed by an administrator. A few of these Flickr image pages (without the images) are available at the Wayback machine, and seem to confirm the license ([8], [9]). The issue may perhaps be whether the Flickr account actually belonged to the magazine. If there is no doubt that it did, then it seems that they made these images available on Flickr under a CC-BY license, but later regretted this and closed the account, withdrawing their liberal image licensing in the process. --Hegvald (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I wasn't questioning that the image was available on flickr at the time of the upload under a stated free license. However (1) the fact that the flickr account has been deleted is rather an indication of a possible flickrwashing. Furthermore, (2) as the official website of Café Magazine indicates a different license, it appears that they would have been inconsistent by releasing the image under one license in one place and another in another place, which I find unlikely. Third (3) the image description is dubious, indicating "8 December 2008", while the magazine published it "06 maj 2008", and the magazine as author instead of a photographer is dubious too. (4) The uploader has a record of copyvios in the same period, by which I only mean that is likely to have fallen victim to flickrwashing. To me this looks like a duck and smells like a duck, but I guess the best way to get 100% certainty would be if somebody speaking Swedish would ask the magazine to confirm that they owned a flickr account with the name "magazinecafe" in January 2009 when the upload occurred. --ELEKHHT13:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A CC-license is irreversible, but the CC is only valid if the licence was added by the copyright-owner. And we do not know if Café ever has owned the copyright of these pictures. (It's not obvious from the mail.) The CC-license was removed, maybe because it was a copyvio. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the quoted email reply from the svwp discussion: "Vår Flickr-närvaro är ett steg i ledet att helt enkelt utforska och lära av nya kanaler. Vi vill inte agera “gammelmedialt” protektionistisk utan ser snarare ett värde i att vårt innehåll sprids för vinden. Vi är ett modernt magasin och vet att det kanske finns hundra siter där ute som är viktigare för oss och vårt innehåll än vår egen. Creative Commons-biten däremot är ett misstag. Eller i alla fall ett just nu, lite förhastat steg. Vi utforskar möjligheterna att delge delar av vårt material (som mycket som möjligt, om jag får bestämma) under creative commons-licens men vi är inte riktigt där än och alla bilder kommer under kvällen att “märkas om”. Vissa alltså tillfälligt." summarized as "the account is ours but the cc licence was a mistake". However, Delete if it can be shown that the licence was put there by someone who had no right to do so. /grillo (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
i am the photographer of this picture. the description page of the picture still contains my real name (in the descriptions of the older file-versions) and turns up in ggogle-searches. so please either remove the old versions of the file along with the mentioning of my real name, or delete the file altogether, so i can re-upload it without using my real name. F.412 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am the photographer of this picture. the description page of the picture still contains my real name (in the descriptions of the older file-versions) and turns up in ggogle-searches. so please either remove the old versions of the file along with the mentioning of my real name, or delete the file altogether, so i can re-upload it without using my real name. F.412 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
non-free license, no OTRS ticket listed. The license for the image is correct (Creative Commons BY-SA Dieses Foto ist unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz (Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland) lizenziert.) but
Bei dem Inhalt unserer Internetseiten handelt es sich um urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke. Die CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion gestattet die Übernahme von Texten in Datenbestände, die ausschließlich für den privaten Gebrauch eines Nutzers bestimmt sind. Die Übernahme und Nutzung der Daten zu anderen Zwecken bedarf unserer schriftlichen Zustimmung.
Pictures are not texts. As anyone can see at the website where the picture has been transferred from, the file has been set (apparantly by the copyright holder: the photographer) on a free license CC-BY-SA 3.0 while others of Bundestag members are not. There are some 110 pictures with a free license while almost the same number of picture are held with a non-free license. So this seems to be a true Much ado about nothing. --Miebner (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laut deutschem Urheberrecht ist aber der Fotograf Urheber und nicht der Verwerter (in diesem Fall die CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion). Die Fotografin hat das Bild offensichtlich unter CC-Lizenz freigegeben und das lässt sich in diesem Fall sogar in den EXIF-Daten nachlesen (ich unterstelle mal dass die Fotografin selbst die CC-Lizenz dort eingetragen hat). Letztlich liegt mit dem Setzen der CC-Lizenz im Einzelfall ja die explizite schriftliche Zustimmung vor. --Miebner (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Okay, thank you. I will do a crop and a blurred version tomorrow. Then the original version can be hid/deleted. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a blurred version (think this would be okay, but not sure) and a cropped version. Because I do not think the blurred version is of much use I have not uploaded under a new name. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Why this raster if this is own work? For me it looks like a newspaper-scan. If it is a newspaper-scan, we need permission from the photographer. If not, I am sorry for doubting own work.
Delete the first four, Keep the last three. The first four do indeed look like newspaper scans, but the last three look like actual developed photos. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
On the one hand, Wikimedia Commons has traditionally had a somewhat tolerant policy towards "special or fictional" flags and emblems, and such files are not usually deleted solely on the grounds of being "special or fictional", unless some additional aggravating factor is also present. However, on the other hand, many of these images are of extremely poor quality, both from a technical standpoint (JPEG when a JPEG should not be used, etc.), and also with respect to poor symbolism, extremely doubtful usefulness (even within the "special or fictional" realm), etc. File:Muslimjewishpeaceflag.jpg is actually one of the poorest quality of all of them (as explained at User_talk:SomeDudeWithAUserName)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Almost certainly taken from a bin Laden video--not taken by a US government employee. It doesn't matter whether there were any objections. --GrapedApe (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep I don't understand the point of the nomination. Rama (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment @Ds02006 -- While English is our lingua franca, Commons policy assumes that we will work in whatever languages are available and convenient. The Google translations (which I have provided above) are mostly good enough to get the gist of any argument, although not good enough for subtleties of copyright law. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info For English speakers: User:Gothance claims that the Royal Library of Belgium owns the copyright of the file above because they own and scanned the 17th century map. I claim that corresponding to Belgian law (and US law), making a digital scan of a Public domain document does not generate a new copyright. Donarreiskoffer (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
