Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/11
 |
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}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_Figurenbildstock_hl._Johannes_Nepomuk.jpg){kind=link}
![140 File:Robert_Indiana's_"LOVE"_@_IMA.jpg](#File:Robert_Indiana's_"LOVE"_@_IMA.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The photo does not show the whole bottle and focuses on the label. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should File:Stolichnaya.jpg be treated the same way? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That one shows the whole bottle and thus is ok per the principle of the Skyy case. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per argument from Asclepias; the full bottle is ok to use on commons. this one is a copyvio russavia (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezioman/3893993278/), where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Because the original image (Tussaud, US) has been replaced by another from Tussaud, UK, which is copyright-o.k. Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Empty page. 84.61.188.59 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in The Netherlands, where FOP exemption is not valid indoor of museums (Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands), this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: as original image was replaced by one from Tussauds, London. Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination Warfieldian (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- replaced with a picture taken in London ~~
Kept: as initial image was replaced by a non-violating image taken at Tussauds, London. Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Clearly a violation of copyright, the original source name is on the picture Dove (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Leyo 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
i think change the image Romosquera (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- it is a request by the uploader --Saibo (Δ) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request by uploader. ■ MMXX talk 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW from an unknown source like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from photographer (or from his heir) is needed. The photo is made in 1950s and Venezuela demands 60 years from publishing, so by principle the photo can be out of copyright, but for that publication data are needed. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Extremely small resolution. Wknight94 talk 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo of unknown guy. Probably out of COM:SCOPE. Also probably a copyvio like many of the uploader's other files. Wknight94 talk 00:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Most likely not uploader's own work Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Most likely not uploader's own work Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Spam , 17 years old boy Roberto Fiadone (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Barcex deleted "File:323974363 KULXIXLCCWLTYSE.jpg High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
file for vandalism Torin (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Disney Pigby (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: A CC licensed cannot be revoked. The file is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Do not want to be used in Wikipedia Serafita (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- KeepFile is in use at ka.wiki. --GeorgHH • talk 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for modern sculptures in the United States, and the sculpture pictured here is not de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment 1972 work - does it have a copyright notice? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Smithsonian's Art Inventories Catalog under "Inscriptions", it is marked "unsigned". I assume that means it has no copyright notice either, and so {{PD-US-no notice}} is applicable? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking it up. Indeed, Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking it up. Indeed,
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo album. Photograph is unused and not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploded to this forum at 07.09.2009, 20:16. Geagea (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete No FoP for 3D art in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete no FoP for 3d art in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no FOP in US for 3d art as already noted. Warfieldian (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP in the US for modern 3D art. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP for 3d art in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork. Not used. Out of scope Sreejith K (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP in the US for modern 3D art. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP for 3d art in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no FoP for 3 D art in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete No COM:FOP for modern 3D art in the US where this photo was taken. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A bit bigger version her or her. Geagea (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
copy from Hong Kong newspaper[1] 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- other images from User:Estetica may also copvio北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The page you linked to doesn't show this image. All images from User:Estetica are now OTRS approved, provided by Estetica Magazine (China). – Adrignola talk 13:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
copy from newspaper [2] 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is the original file. The image on that site is lower resolution and visibly lower quality, especially when enlarged. OTRS permission received. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
copy from newspaper [3][4] 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The image at that site is lower resolution and has watermarks, while this one is higher resolution with no watermarks. It would seem that this is the original image (though I can't say for sure that the uploader is the copyright holder). – Adrignola talk 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Has a big watermark on it which makes me feel that this is a copyrighted image Sreejith K (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- M. Civa, pouvez-vous me donner les informations exactes motivant votre décision de suppression. Qui est l'auteur du bâtiment ? Est-il vivant ou mort ? Quand le bâtiment a-t-il été construit ? Vous devez savoir tout ça, n'est-ce pas ? ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted:
- It is the job of the uploader, not the nominator or the closing Admin, to provide the information requested above.
- If the architect died after 1942, then the building is still in copyright.
- It seems fairly obvious that this building was built after that.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Image cannot be freely licensed: derivative of copyrighted comic character. FOP does not apply since this figure apparently is not permanently installed. Lupo 11:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just based myself on this : "Any work liable to be seen or heard in the reporting of current events may be reproduced, distributed and communicated to the public, but only to the extent justified by the informatory purpose." This is definitely a public event (Comics festival in Spain) and the work can be seen by everybody. I also think that case is not very different from the pictures of the cosplays of people dressed as copyrighted characters (which are, by definition, not permanently installed either). So I'd say Keep, of course.BD Galicia (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above quote does not amount to a free license (limited to "informational purposes"). It's a news reporting "fair use"-like rule and has nothing to do with FOP and should accordingly be removed from the FOP page. Lupo 12:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the quote above is rather unclear, but I tend to interpret it as a permission to reproduce the images. If I misinterpret it, my bad. Anyway, I am not entirely convinced that there is copyright violation : the derivative image is probably authorized, as it was made for a festival, and is meant to be seen by everybody. Again, I see no real difference between this and images of people dressed as copyrighted characters. Expert advice might be useful here. BD Galicia (talk)
Delete derivative works of copyrighted characters are not allowed on commons. agree with nom that this figure is not permanently displayed. "to the extend justified by the informatory purpose" would not presumably include commercial use of the image which would go beyond merely informational purposes. Just because a statue or artwork is "meant to be seen by everybody" does not mean that an image of it can be freely licensed. In the U.S., there are plenty of recent statues that are meant to be seen by everyone that are not automatically freely licensed for photographs due to lack of Freedom of Panorama provisions in the U.S. copyright law.Warfieldian (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. Building achieved in 2006. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong file uploaded Duodjiinfo (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Something went wrong with this deletion.--GerritR (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Tours Coeur Défense en gros plan. No FOP in France for architectural works. Poudou99 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @Jameslwoodward: as the deleting admin. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a software which might not be free. No information about the software on the image page. Sreejith K (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution unused image. Not sure whether this is the user image. Sreejith K (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, but certainly not FAL. Image comes from [5], linked at [6]. Photo evidently comes from NATO; see IPTC info. No license specified. Lupo 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](http://kosova.org/pics/nato/villagers.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo. From the description, it feels that this is not a user page image. Needs to establish that the image is not {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio; no permission from author en:Chris Bryant. Article relates photo: "He was ridiculed by the press in 2003 when he was discovered to have posed wearing only underpants on a gay dating site, Gaydar, whilst an MP". Unless the uploader is Chris Bryant (which seems improbable) it's a copyvio. Man vyi (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, badGIF, replaced by File:Vinpocetine.svg. Leyo 12:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. Also has margins and caption that interfere with reuse. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Commons is not a webhost Sreejith K (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused image with no possible educational use Sreejith K (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. Unused and with little possibilty of an educational use. Commons is not a webhost. Sreejith K (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 13:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Contains fictional countries. 84.61.188.59 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No proof of public domain - eminently possible that we are still in the life+70 bracket. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal rights. Plz remove picture of myself. It is not used/referenced by any article. 153.96.158.129 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bist du :de-User Hugie? --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It doesn't matter if the IP user is User Hugie -- it is out of scope in any case Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Self potrait, No scope for Wiki Loves Food and not needed in commons Saileshpat (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
.svg.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative version of a deleted file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:UEFA - Champions League.svg. Leyo 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative version of a deleted file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:UEFA - Champions League.svg. Leyo 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep - I do not see any personal creativity; this is an ancient shape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- But then, File:UEFA - Champions League.svg would have to be undeleted. --Leyo 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Try to convince Jameslwoodward... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor Warfieldian (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
withdrawn -- it is unclear where this photo was taken and whether FoP applies. Warfieldian (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: London, so FOP is OK Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This file wasn´t taken in US. My name is Alberto Alerigi Jr. And I take that picture in Madame Tussauds museum in LONDON! By the way, I don´t know who uploaded that picture from my Flickr. 201.52.126.13 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please tell more explicitely what is your reason for requesting the deletion? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alberto, if you have it licensed as being CC-BY, that means that anyone can use the image for any purpose as long as they attribute you as the photographer/creator. As such, uploading the image here is in line with the license on the image.
- However, I am concerned that FOP does not apply to interior shots. From my understanding, it is only for exterior photographs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whether FOP applies to interior shots varies from country to country. Per COM:FOP#United Kingdom: "it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." --Kramer Associates (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- And how is "permanent" described in British copyright law? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, isn't the copyright for the character design held by the studio, and this would be free image of a copyvio derivative work? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whether FOP applies to interior shots varies from country to country. Per COM:FOP#United Kingdom: "it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." --Kramer Associates (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Crisco's first question. We have generally accepted that Mme T. sculptures in London are OK unless they are of characters that had a very short life. Whether this passes that or not is a judgment call, which I made above. Some of our colleagues may disagree.
- Crisco's second question. You may be sure that Mme T. has an appropriate license to the character (if required), so the sculpture itself is not a copyvio. (We don't need to spend any time on the broader question of whether the sculpture is a derivative work -- it probably is, see the sixth example here.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- So a licensed statue of a copyrighted character can still fall under FOP, but an unlicensed one would be a copyvio. <confusion>I think I get the point</confusion> Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Think of it this way. If the sculpture is properly licensed, then you are creating a derivative work of a properly licensed sculpture and, if FOP allows in the sculpture's location, your image is perfectly legal. If the sculpture is not properly licensed, then the fact that there is FOP does not somehow turn a copyvio sculpture into a properly licensed DW image. You may be sure that in considering whether or not to license characters in countries with broad FOP (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, etc.) that the licensor considers this issue.
- This issue has been important in several discussions on Commons -- I remember one over a municipal mosaic copy of Picaaso's Guernica. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor Warfieldian (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
withdrawn -- this is from UK which has FOP for statues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfieldian (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Low resolution. Non-ideal file format. Unused. High quality alternatives are in Category:Acrylic acid. Ed (Edgar181) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this logo exceeds the threshold of originality. ALE! ¿…? 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - just text, compare Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Pure text, a little unique typeface, but nothing approaching the threshold of originality. --Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's more near to an artwork than simple text.--Trixt (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Bond to -OH group incorrectly attaches through the H, not the O. Low resolution. Unused. High quality alternatives are in Category:Acrylic acid. Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Would be easy to fix but already have many usable "fixed" alternatives. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Who is painter? What is date of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Work of Antoni Estruch i Bros (1873 - 1957), copyrighted. Canaan (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- License
For current Spain license tags and copyright information see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright tags#Spain and
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain
- http://www.cerlalc.org/derechoenlinea/dar/leyes_reglamentos/Espana/Espana.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapdevila (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- --Mcapdevila (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: New file uploaded about "Els segadors" revolt, with copyright expired for was printed in 1910, and the owner: Editorial Miralles, (after the death of Hermenegildo Miralles in 1931), disappeared during the civil war (1939), so more than 100 years have elapsed from the first case and more than 70 from the second...--Mcapdevila (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Under spanish law, works of authors who died before December 7, 1987 (or were published before said date, in case of anonymous works) are dealt with by the 1879 law, which sets a protection time of 80 years post mortem auctoris (art. 6 1879 law). Antoni Estruch died in 1957, less than 80 years.--Canaan (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Canaan for the info about spanish law, so it is perfect for the new file I've just uploaded from Hermenegildo Miralles the new author who died in 1931, therefore prior to December 7, 1987, than must be dealt with by the 1879 law, which sets a protection time of 80 years post mortem auctoris (art. 6 1879 law). Hermenegildo Miralles died in 1931, that makes 5 years more than the compulsory 80 years.--Mcapdevila (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The author is Estruch, not Miralles, which in any case would be the editor, which does not take away their rights to Estruch; the work of Miralles would derivative work.--Canaan (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
As I've been telling you, I've uploaded a New file about "els segadors" revolt (shown to the right, not related at all to Antonio Estruch ), with copyright expired for was printed in 1910, and the owner: Editorial Miralles, (after the death of Hermenegildo Miralles in 1931), disappeared during the civil war (1936), so more than 100 years have elapsed from the first case and more than "80 years" from the second.. So either you consider Miralles the autor, than the copyright has expired 1879 law, or it was one of his workers.. than its author is anonymous (as part of the staff of the disappeared editorial Miralles) therefore its copyright has expired as well because the law that applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity.. any option you choose is free of copyright..--Mcapdevila (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, sorry.--Canaan (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the new file meet requirements.--Canaan (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: new version. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Marquesdelarios (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely "own work" but photo of sign or pamphlet of ski resort. P199 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The licence is not apropriate (only the author can choose a CC-By-SA), . No free document, can stay on Commons only files for all uses, include commercial uses for movies, radio, record on discs for sale... --MGuf (d) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative of an unfree work. It cannot be on the Commons (and it cannot be on the fr.wikipedia, where it is currently displayed, but it could possibly be hosted and used on the en.wikipedia, if it meets WP:NFC and WP:SAMPLE there). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The licence is not apropriate (only the author can choose a CC-By-SA), . No free document, can stay on Commons only files for all uses, include commercial uses for movies, radio, record on discs for sale.. --MGuf (d) 18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative of an unfree work. It cannot be on the Commons (and it cannot be on the fr.wikipedia, where it is currently displayed, but it could possibly be hosted and used on the en.wikipedia, if it meets WP:NFC and WP:SAMPLE there). -- Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.188.59 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No FOP - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:TashkentTower.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Copyright and Related Rights", Article 30, (http://www.pr.uz/zakoni/5136 in Russian) permits free reproduction of any objects located in open spaces - buildings, parks, etc. Anton Rakitskiy (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Google translation of Article 30, cited above:
- "Article 30. Free use of works permanently located in places open to public access.
- Be allowed without the author's consent and without paying copyright royalties reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographs, fine art permanently located in places open to the public. This rule does not apply to cases where the work constitutes the main object of such reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable, as well as in cases where it is used for commercial purposes."
First, it is the main object. Second, we require that images be free for commercial purposes.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The CC license from Flickr is bogus. A 1950ies US ad could be PD (not registered for copyright), but unless it can be shown that this is actually the case, the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:I can't establish that it was published without a copyright notice. Delete it. Bah humbug. However, if I get a similar advert from the print version of a 1950s [Irish] medical journal and it contains no copyright notice it's in the public domain, right?FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Answer to me = No. That is only a copyright provision under U.S. law. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although presumably if there was a copyright notice it would be contained on the Thorazine advert itself (assuming the image isn't cropped)?
- I've found what is possibly the original source of the image - unless the flickr author took another snap himself [7]. It says it's from the Archives of General Psychiatry 1962. My guess is that this advert is in fact in the public domain as otherwise there would be a copyright notice in the body of the advert.
Short of getting a copy of the periodical for that year, however, there's probably no way of establishing this.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)- Sorry for going around in circles, as this is all new to me but ... the image I uploaded from the flicker account and the other image I linked to above from the American gallery of psychiatry appear to be two different photos of the same advert. We know that it was published in a U.S. periodical in 1962. No copyright notice appears on either version of the image and as it was published before March 1989 it is in the public domain. Further, even if we assume that there was a copyright notice that has somehow been obscured or excised from the image as it was published before 1964 its copyright would have had to have been renewed. However a search of U.S. Copyright Renewal Records reveals that neither Smith Kline and French Laboratories nor any subsidiary nor any asignee renewed any copyright to this advertisement or any collection of advertisement or any collection of material that might encompass this advertisement as would have been required to maintain copyright protection, if any had existed. Indeed Smith Kline and French Laboratories and its subsidiaries have not renewed copyright on any advertisement. The sole records of copyright renewal that exist for this company relate to book and pamphlet publications and sales aids: e.g., [8], [9], [10]. There is no evidence that Smith Kline and French Laboratories or any assignee claims copyright on this advertisement.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the argument I'm pursuing here is based on that forwarded for this imageFiachraByrne (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for going around in circles, as this is all new to me but ... the image I uploaded from the flicker account and the other image I linked to above from the American gallery of psychiatry appear to be two different photos of the same advert. We know that it was published in a U.S. periodical in 1962. No copyright notice appears on either version of the image and as it was published before March 1989 it is in the public domain. Further, even if we assume that there was a copyright notice that has somehow been obscured or excised from the image as it was published before 1964 its copyright would have had to have been renewed. However a search of U.S. Copyright Renewal Records reveals that neither Smith Kline and French Laboratories nor any subsidiary nor any asignee renewed any copyright to this advertisement or any collection of advertisement or any collection of material that might encompass this advertisement as would have been required to maintain copyright protection, if any had existed. Indeed Smith Kline and French Laboratories and its subsidiaries have not renewed copyright on any advertisement. The sole records of copyright renewal that exist for this company relate to book and pamphlet publications and sales aids: e.g., [8], [9], [10]. There is no evidence that Smith Kline and French Laboratories or any assignee claims copyright on this advertisement.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've found what is possibly the original source of the image - unless the flickr author took another snap himself [7]. It says it's from the Archives of General Psychiatry 1962. My guess is that this advert is in fact in the public domain as otherwise there would be a copyright notice in the body of the advert.
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of an unknown, probably modern statue. Low-res photo with no exif data, thus dubious "own work" claim by en-wiki uploader; moreover, "freedom of panorama" status of scultpure is unknown (no info about age, artist, or location). Even if photo copyright were okay, no legitimate educational use as long as we don't know what the photo shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update: according to a photo on this site, our photo may in fact be a photoshopped version, showing a part of a statue that in reality has this person sitting next to another. Except for this larger version, and multiple pages evidently mirroring ours, I can find no independent evidence of this statue anywhere on the web. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted artistic work, picture taken in Tokyo. No commercial use for FoP in Japan. Warfieldian (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in the US, where there is no FOP exemption for non-buildings, this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. Or could we claim de minimis? -- Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this and I don't know what the rules are for wax likenesses. All I really waned was the bike -- we can keep the cropped version, I hope. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Cropped version looks OK to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in The Netherlands, where FOP exemption is not valid indoor of museum (Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands), this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in The Netherlands, where FOP exemption is not valid indoor of museums (Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands), this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in The Netherlands, where FOP exemption is not valid indoor of museums (Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands), this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As this image was shot in The Netherlands, where FOP exemption is not valid indoor of museums (Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands), this image violates the copyright of the wax sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This photograph has been uploaded without the permission of the depicted person and thereby in violation of German law (§22 KUG) and COM:PEOPLE#Germany. See OTRS ticket 2011080810004222. AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment A replacement with the permission of the depicted person is already available (File:Jürgen Edmund Wertheimer.png) which is already in use in the corresponding article (de:Jürgen Wertheimer). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty and not needed cat --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The flickr user brava_67 is some fan uploading other peoples work to their flickr. The original photographer is someone else [11], the picture is unfree. Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete taken from Flickr account with multiple other copyrighted screen snapshots and web pictures, no EXIF data, available elsewhere uncredited (http://storage.canalblog.com/82/91/131665/17052900.jpg), low res, looks like flickr washing. Warfieldian (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:14, 12 August 2011 by Tabercil, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty cat. too much categorization. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty cat. too much categorization --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
too much categorization. empty cat. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 22:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty cat. too much categorization. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image. ■ MMXX talk 23:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 23:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ya2sine (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty and not needed cat ZH2010 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty and not needed cat ZH2010 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Falsch hochgeladen Pirkheimer (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work like many of uploader's other contributions. Wknight94 talk 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as the nominantor--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work unless uploader owns a satellite. Wknight94 talk 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no creativity, just a machine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So now you're saying Google Maps is public domain? Wknight94 talk 02:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see how it can be copyrighted; an automatic surveilance camera in orbit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- So should we create a bot to start uploading all of Google Maps here? Wknight94 talk 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not the own work of User:Dusty777; CC-self invalid for this image High Contrast (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work unless uploader owns a satellite. Wknight94 talk 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no creativity, just an automatic surveilance camera in orbit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So now you're saying Google Maps is public domain? Wknight94 talk 02:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not the own work of User:Dusty777; CC-self invalid for this image High Contrast (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a COM:DW and a copyvio unless someone has a clever PD-not-renewed sort of claim. Wknight94 talk 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a derivative work from some unknown source. Wknight94 talk 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Media is no longer needed for article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerveaupro (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can be used in the future. --GeorgHH • talk 09:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, uploaded upon special permission despite administrating rights as own work (photo taken by Louise Héroux) --Cerveaupro • talk 18:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Media is no longer needed for article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerveaupro (talk • contribs) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can be used in the future. --GeorgHH • talk 09:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, uploaded upon special permission despite administrating rights as own work (photo taken by Louise Héroux) --Cerveaupro • talk 18:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Media is no longer needed for article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerveaupro (talk • contribs) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can be used in the future. --GeorgHH • talk 09:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, uploaded upon special permission despite administrating rights as own work (photo taken by DCYSA) --Cerveaupro • talk 18:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely a user's only upload is a posed photo he took of the mayor of a large city. Real source unknown. Wknight94 talk 04:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- To answer the anonymous person at the talk page, please take a look at COM:OTRS for how to file your permission claim with our official ticket system. Once that process is complete, the photograph will be safe. Wknight94 talk 12:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
,_Figurenbildstock_hl._Johannes_Nepomuk.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Figurenbildstock_hl._Johannes_Nepomuk.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The wrong picture was uploaded Kwerdenker (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
,_Figurenbildstock_hl._Johannes_Nepomuk.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
,_Figurenbildstock_hl._Johannes_Nepomuk.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for modern sculptures in the United States. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![07:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/11#c-Jacklee-2011-08-11T07:03:00.000Z-File:Robert_Indiana's_"LOVE"_@_IMA.jpg){kind=link}
The Indianapolis Museum of Art is a private art museum. - User:Qsthomson
- I don't think that makes a difference. The artist, Robert Indiana, is living and so the sculpture is still copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without his permission. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does not matter if his is living or not. The question is whether this 1970 work has a copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes – I keep forgetting US law is quite different from the law in Commonwealth countries. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it's unsigned, according to the Smithsonian's Art Inventories Catalog. Does that mean {{PD-US-no notice}} applies? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking it up. Indeed, Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking it up. Indeed,
- It does not matter if his is living or not. The question is whether this 1970 work has a copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/11#c-Jacklee-2011-08-11T15:42:00.000Z-File:Robert_Indiana's_"LOVE"_@_IMA.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/11#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-08-20T18:40:00.000Z-File:Robert_Indiana's_"LOVE"_@_IMA.jpg){kind=link}
Small resolution. Possibly a web copyright infringement Sreejith K (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to doubt own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is this a useful image? --Sreejith K (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Commons probably has no other picture from 1970 of a circus tent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Seems no reason to doubt Ben.MQ (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Fehlerhafte unkenntlichmachung. Bastion (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment That does not appear to be a reason to delete your own image. Perhaps you could explain? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - en:JTS Brown is clearly old enough for {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1) what is clearly old enough? the bottle design? the images at the front? 2) how do you know there is no copyright notice? —Pill (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bottles are not copyrighted. Labels may be copyrighted, but there never was a copyright notice on the label. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- is that confirmed or just a guess? —Pill (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bottles are not copyrighted. Labels may be copyrighted, but there never was a copyright notice on the label. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1) what is clearly old enough? the bottle design? the images at the front? 2) how do you know there is no copyright notice? —Pill (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels Jcb (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Reason: The image seems to be of too high a quality to be a screenshot from this film. I think it's a wallpaper image from The Disney Experience which is copyrighted according to the full un-cropped version. Furthermore, if you view The Spirit of '43 here, the aspect radio doesn't seem to match and there are words which are too close to his bottom jaw that couldn't have been removed by just cropping. Pigby (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Viewing the links you made it appears to me that this image is merely a lavish copy of the others which according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. it is not enough to attract copyright protection in the United States. Tm (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm. --LMFAO - /let's laugh/ 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Pienso que si es tomado de la película debería quedarse pero si no parece tomado de la misma. Porqué no mejor sustituirlo con una imagen mas evidentemente tomada de la película.--Inri (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted character. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif for a detailed explanation. Claritas (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - This is a completely different situation! This is a screenshot of a cartoon in the public domain. And please also read as written above! Angelus (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment How is it a "completely different situation" ? The derivative elements of the work are still copyrighted, the original elements are public domain, ergo, the file itself is not in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not properly a derivative work is only a screenshot ergo a part of the caroon in public domain! Angelus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cartoon isn't in the public domain, however, because it contains derivative material from copyrighted works. Only the original authorship of the producers of the cartoon is in the public domain - the character of Donald Duck is not, and thus this image is not either. --Claritas (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- This cartoon was created for the US Government, so it is in public domain! Angelus (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. per ANGELUS and previously closed discussion above. No need to re open an artificial debate--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. per ANGELUS --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Commons:Deletion requests/Donald Duck from Spirit 43. Donald Duck is still copyrighted -- he first appeared in The Wise Little Hen (1934), which was successfully renewed in 1961. Every single appearance of Donald Duck after The Wise Little Hen would be considered a derivative work from the first cartoon, hence copyrighted. Yes, the copyright on The Spirit of '43 wasn't renewed, and a part of the cartoon fall in the public domain, but parts of it with Donald Duck are still copyrighted as a DW from the previous works. See the long discussion cited by the nominator for details. Trycatch (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I repeat, this is not a derivative work is only a screenshot! A frame of a cartoon in public domain! So this screenshot is in public domain too! Angelus (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cartoon is not entirely in the public domain. All frames from the cartoon which show copyrighted Disney characters are not in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If a work is created for a public body and is distributed with the aim of being in the public domain, it is entirely in the public domain! All frames of the work! Angelus (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. That's not how copyright works. All "original authorship" created for the federal government is in the public domain, but as Donald Duck was created before the cartoon was, and has independent copyright protection, the whole cartoon is not in the public domain, no matter how it is distributed. It's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. --Claritas (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The entire film was created for the US Government, then all the frames present within it, are in public domain, regardless of who portray. Angelus (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, as it's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. Imagine the situation in which you're an employee of US government creating a film, and I give you permission for you to use some footage, i.e. I waive my copyrights for your particular use. I still hold all the copyrights associated with my footage - I've simply employed my right to let you use it. --Claritas (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant for you! When waiving copyright of a work, all of its parts (therefore also the various frames) are public domain. Angelus (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how copyright works. I can let someone else use my work without putting it in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the film in question and all its frame, are in the public domain! Angelus (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Angelus and Jebulon. --o'Sistemonetell me 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete You cannot whitewash copyright by having a copyrighted work republished by a US government employee! พ.s. 21:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- This catoon was not republished by a US government employee but was published for the U.S. government and it was distributed with the aim of being in the public domain, so all its frame are in the public domain! Angelus (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Proof it. พ.s. 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's not proof, that's misinterpretation of an opinion. พ.s. 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Misinterpretation of an opinion??? What does it means???
- Anyway, of course that's a proof! Have you read the article before responding?
This cartoon was created for the US Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain.
— The Spirit of '43 - from en.wiki
Aquest film va ser creat per al Govern dels Estats Units, i com totes les pel·lícules fetes per o per al Govern dels Estats Units està al domini públic.
— The Spirit of '43 - from ca.wiki
Este cortometraje fue creado para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos, y como todas las películas hechas por o para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos está en el dominio público.
— The Spirit of '43 - from es.wiki
Het filmpje is betaald door de Amerikaanse overheid, om de belastingen op te krikken. Als gevolg hiervan is het een van de weinige Disney-producties in publiek domein, zoals alle werken van de Amerikaanse overheid.
— The Spirit of '43 - from nl.wiki
And please, also read here! --Angelus (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Angelus and Jebulon. Yann (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This file seems to be more likely a derivatve work of that "Spirit of '43"-movie than a screenshot. Besides, obviously "Walt Disney Pictures" made a mistake by placing this movie in the public domain as a governmental work. Now anybody could use Donald's face for free without restrictions. What a pity. --80.187.107.33 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
...appears to me that this image is merely a lavish copy of the others which according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. it is not enough to attract copyright protection in the United States.
- Comment The word "lavish" in the Bridgeman quotation, should be "slavish". Please follow the link provided above to verify this. I verified the source of this image and corrected and elaborated the source information on the file page.[12] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Ok you're right, so I write this other quote.
![[12]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=File%3ADonald_Duck_-_The_Spirit_of_%2743_%28cropped_version%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=65885532&oldid=65155126){kind=link}
A slavish photographic copy of a painting thus, according to Nimmer, lacks originality and thus copyrightability under the U.S. Copyright Act.
--79.33.146.181 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - First, works created by the US Federal government are PD, but works created for the US government may be (and probably are) copyrighted (see en:Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works). Also, per the previous discussion (linked in the nomination), while the work itself (The Spirit of '43) might be PD, there is an underlying character copyright which remains, and based on recent cases, probably prevents the creation of many derivative works. Therefore, this is not really free for Commons purposes. cmadler (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per file description. "The cartoon was created for the U.S. Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain." Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 15:41, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
Kept The movie is PD in USA, therefore a screenshot is also PD. There may be restrictions on some derivative works. Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Files copied to wikilivres:Category:Donald_Duck. Yann (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
The movie is not PD in the US, only _some parts_ of it are in PD in the US, but everything with Donald Duck is still copyrighted. Read the previous discussions about the problem (Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif) -- if the character is not free, it "poisons" every work with that character published later, making non-free even works that otherwise would be considered PD (such as this move, or the Mickey Mouse poster). The "screenshot" (of course, it's not a screenshot, but the closing admin failed to read the previous discussion) is a derivative work from the copyrighted Donald Duck character, and is not in the PD. There is no way the file can be not copyrighted. Trycatch (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the discussion. And I think that the conclusion is wrong. Yann (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, explain why you think it's wrong. You disagree that it's not a screenshot? Derivative work from a screenshot -- it's possible, but it's certainly has too high resolution and is too clean to be a screenshot from 1940s. Or you disagree that copyrighted content "contaminates" all future releases with that content even by the same author/studio? I've cited at least three court cases (and there are much more of them) confirming that point of view in the previous discussion. You disagree? Ok, _explain_ why you think that my interpretation was wrong. It's not possible to argue about anything without arguments. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your decision would be correct if the "Spirit of '43" would have been the first appearance of Donald Duck. But it's not the case. Donald Duck first appeared in The Wise Little Hen from 1934 (and it's still copyrighted), the cartoon in question was published much later. Trycatch (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, explain why you think it's wrong. You disagree that it's not a screenshot? Derivative work from a screenshot -- it's possible, but it's certainly has too high resolution and is too clean to be a screenshot from 1940s. Or you disagree that copyrighted content "contaminates" all future releases with that content even by the same author/studio? I've cited at least three court cases (and there are much more of them) confirming that point of view in the previous discussion. You disagree? Ok, _explain_ why you think that my interpretation was wrong. It's not possible to argue about anything without arguments. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if we ignore the fact that this is clearly derivative work from a screenshot (not a screenshot itself) which is probably encumbered by character copyright, it is not at all clear to me that the film is truly in the public domain. It was stated by many editors in the above discussions that the film is in the public domain because it was created for the US government. However, the US Code states A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. (17 USC §101) This film is therefore clearly not a "work of the United States Government" for copyright purposes. It's possible that it's public domain for having no notice or if it wasn't renewed, but that would need verification. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it was created for the government, but yes, it was not renewed, so the parts of the cartoon without Donald Duck are truly free. Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not de minimis, because:
- This file depicts only one frame of the film,
- The frame depicted in this file shows Donald Duck,
- but as a major part, and
- Disney has never released comic characters into the public domain. --84.61.139.62 09:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it was created for the government, but yes, it was not renewed, so the parts of the cartoon without Donald Duck are truly free. Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per my original rationale.--Claritas (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, Trycatch didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, he reopen it with the same arguments. This is very rude, and disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is quite simple:
- Is the movie is in the public domain? YES.
- Is a simple screenshot of the movie is in the PD? YES.
- Does it meet Commons' requirements? YES.
Now, there are some restrictions because of the content of the file. But there is nothing in the requirements which says that there should not be restrictions. This request is trying to add new requirements under the disguise of a DR. This is not the right process. First create a general discussion (I think a request for comments is appropriate), then the DR can be examined again. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept Closing as per above: no new arguments, the file is allowed under current Commons' requirements. Do NOT open the DR again without new arguments. Thanks. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion about Yann's conduct at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg & User:Yann. Trycatch (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Archive link to the above discussion: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 33#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg & User:Yann. There is subsequent related discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests -- cmadler (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-4){kind=link}
Copyright violation. 84.61.139.62 11:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per extended discussion above and multiple incorrect closures. --Claritas (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per reason of admins above who kept it. --Wiki13 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment No new valid reason added for deletion. --79.22.195.4 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep speedy. I cannot judge the legal details, but reopening the same request time after time with the same arguments is wasting resources. No reason the fourth discussion will come to a more correct conclusion than the three earlier ones. Wait at least until there is new material to found the decision on, people have changed or people can be expected to have changed their minds (obviously wrongly closed requests will fulfil those criteria, but the decisions above are obviously not obviously wrong). --LPfi (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge mixup with this images, with a lot of them being deleted and a few being kept. --Claritas (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- @LPfi. The earlier ones were closed in this way, because of some misunderstandings. Later the admin who kept this picture, nominated a bunch of similar pics himself. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous discussions. Tm (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- "per previous dicussions"? it should be {{Vd}} then. See Category:Disney characters deletion requests -- all of them were deleted, except this one. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
%22_-_NARA_-_513869_-_cropped_and_tidied.png){kind=link}
- Comment To the closing admin -- there is a more or less general consensus that the pictures like this are copyrighted, read e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests, and so on. "Kept" results for this particular picture were nothing more than a small fluctuation. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The arguments made above for character-related deletion are wrong — multiple Looney Tunes cartoons fell into the public domain due to technicalities such as failure to renew copyright, and now those cartoons are republished all the time for profit. That wouldn't be the case if the appearance of characters such as Bugs Bunny caused the cartoons to remain in copyright, and if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers — thus it's not possible for the appearance of a character to save copyright here. And since there's no evidence that copyright was ever renewed for this film, it's irrevocably in the public domain, even if it began as a copyrightable work. Trust the corporate lawyers for the video companies that reproduce cartoons like Falling Hare without royalty when they assume that PD really is PD. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- "if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers" -- and that's exactly what they do. See e.g. Warner Bros. v. AVELA [13] (it was throughly discussed in the previous DRs on the same topic). Really, read the previous discussions, for starters this, this, and this. --Trycatch (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept per consensus. INeverCry 18:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-5){kind=link}
I can't believe this file was kept after so many deletion requests! This is derivative work of the copyrighted character design of Donald Duck, and besides, it had been used in films before "The Spirit of '43". All those who've kept this file on the basis of the FILM's copyright, without considering the underlying copyright on the CHARACTER - are real fools. The time is long overdue for this file to be deleted for good. SethAllen623 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I understand your frustration, please make your point without disparaging others. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. But I am not here to disparage other editors; I am instead here to address copyrighted content that is a derivative work of a copyrighted character design, and have it disposed of as soon as possible. Those are two separate copyrights we're dealing with here: copyright on a design, and copyright on a film. If the design and earliest appearances of a character are copyrighted, then the later appearances and redesigns of that character are copyrighted as well. The same goes for music in a film: Music does not go into the public domain with any films that use it. These are separate copyrights.
- Commons exists to provide free media that can be used anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose. This file, like many other "cartoon character derivative works" that I and other editors have ordered deleted recently, is in direct violation of United States copyright law as was decided in Stewart v. Abend. --SethAllen623 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Let's say that I were to post on my userpage the following message "All my text contributions on Commons are in public domain", would this mean that this discussion is now in public domain? Of course not, only my additional element is. The discussion as the whole is under CC-BY-SA license and is copyrighted by several individuals who didn't release it to the public domain. The same here. All the additional elements except the Donald Duck have fallen into the public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of the copyrighted artwork Donald Duck. We've deleted lots of images of Donald Duck and other characters for that reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Consensus -> delete. -FASTILY 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"copyvio" of http://mysite.verizon.net/respzyir/jean-bedel-bokassa/id5.html. Already removed from Dutch, German, African & Russian wiki. The sourcelink given very clearly claims copyright Maasje 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copyvio, I agree, but this image is free! It hasn't author, or no? -- Makakaaaa (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course each image has an author.
A) So we agree it's copyvio, and B) if author is currently unknown, than we canNOT be sure that he/she is dead for over 70 years. With the info we now have, we just can't figure out that it's legally safe for wikipedia to use this image. Maasje 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course each image has an author.
- Keep with {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, because: now author is unknown. If he will founded by anybody, administrators will delete this file. But now it can be there. Sorry for my bad english. -- Makakaaaa (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not yet. The uploader (Makakaaaa) should contact the owner of the website first. If that person is not willing or unable to give the author's name of this image, then we are safe. You should have done so BEFORE uploading this file. Maasje (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Author of image is not specified by owner of the website. Consequently, we can assume that he is unknown. -- Makakaaaa (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- the reasoning is, as usual, "interesting". let's trace back the chain of events: 1) a random website owner publishes an image on his website without an author's name specified. 2) a commons user finds the image there and uploads it to commons. 3) it magically becomes an anonymous work because the website owner didn't specify the author's name.
what is of course totally ignored is that we don't seem to know about the relationship between the website owner and the image. let's say you're a staff member of the wikimedia foundation and you're in charge of running the next fundraising campaign. there's a beautiful (cc-by-sa) picture of a kitten on commons that you'd like to print on a hat Jimmy Wales is supposed to wear in on of his videos. naturally, it looks rather stupid if you add an attribution line to the image (no one likes to wear a hat with an attribution line next to a sweet kitten!). so, what do you do? you go to the uploader and ask him for permission to use his picture without attribution, and now let's assume that he agrees to that. legally, this is perfectly fine. now of course you cannot conclude from that that this is an anonymous work. that's why Maasje is entirely right: you need to contact the owner of the website, ask him where he got the image from / who the author is etc., in other words: you need to investigate the origin of the file.
and finally, the very wording of {{PD-anon-70}} contradicts the use of this template here: "70 years from the year of first publication" -- any evidence when it was published for the first time? —Pill (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) oh, and it so happens that there is even a copyright notice embedded in the original image on the website. —Pill (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC) - Exactly, Pill. I have nothing to add. That's what Makakaaaa doesn't (want to ?) understand. He should have contacted the owner of that website FIRST to ask for info or permission BEFORE uploading this file. My guess is that he still didn't do that, and consequently this file should, at least temporarily, be deleted from Commons. Maasje (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper - I don't think the website owner is in the position to apply copyright to this picture, the embedded claim seems invalid Jcb (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
All copyright violations and (probably) invalid claims of authorship. These are all media meant for advertising these products. For example, File:JHP910.jpg is being used in several webshops.
- File:JHP910.jpg
- File:JBTH710.jpg
- File:JBP1300.jpg
- File:JBP85.jpg
- File:JBM45.jpg
- File:JBM44.jpg
- File:JBEP27.jpg
- File:JBEP23.jpg
- File:Jbep23 500.jpg
Mathonius (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is copyrighted, see nom Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I believe that this image IS copyrighted. See [14] I really wish it wasn't, but I'm afraid it is. I do not believe this image was published, at least not prior to 1923, so it falls under the life + 70 years portion of copyright law. [15]. The issue is under discussion at en. wikipedia also, here. There is a legitimate question of how to "prove" publication, and the Museum of the Rockies has put pretty much a boilerplate copyright on all their images, even old ones with unknown photographers, but I still suspect that Commons can't use this image. However, am bringing the issue here for discussion. Thanks Montanabw (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- This same photograph is currently being discussed at w:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commons. To summarize that discussion, this image was created in the U.S. in 1905 by professional photographers whose works were published widely. There is no direct evidence that this image was published before 1923, but very, very few pre-1923 PD images here actually have information on when they were first published... it's almost always impossible to determine. A Montana museum purchased the negatives in 1980 (although it's unclear whether they purchased the copyrights, or even if the photographs were still under copyright at this time). The museum published the photographs with a boilerplate claim of copyright... but the same museum puts such a copyright claim on every photograph they publish, even ones that are demonstrably in the public domain.
- By the strictest possible standard, I can't show that this image was published before 1923; I can only show strong circumstantial evidence. But almost none of the Featured Images on Commons from pre-1923-U.S. (e.g. 1, 2, 3, etc.) have information on when they were first published. This standard would lead to the vast majority of old PD-US images being deleted. A more reasonable interpretation is that a photograph created in 1905 by professional, published photographers was almost certainly published before 1923, and barring evidence to the contrary I think we should keep the image. Quadell (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Creation is not publication. Creating a photograph is just capturing the image onto a negative; publication of a photograph involves fixing it (developing it) and distributing copies of it to the public (in magazines, or sold on their own). Many archives contain unpublished material and copyright laws in the US grant 70-year-pma for unpublished works. Unpublished photographs tend to be archived in their negative form. {{PD-1923}} is only for works published or registered before 1923; it is not for works created before 1923. Evidence of publication is thus required. Copyright claims of the museum can be ignored unless they are the holders of Schlechten's copyrights.
This image is also quite likely unpublished. Schlechten (1876–1961) was a wildlife/landscape photographer who sold his photographs of said subjects to magazines and other publications. A novelty image (of himself in work) is not known. Furthermore, the museum could not date it precisely (using "circa"). Note that Schlechten photographed the Bozeman region during 1905–1920s.[16] He registered photographs of the peaks (not of himself) in 1911,[17] sold them to postcard publishers,[18] and published another photograph (or perhaps the same in 1911) of the Spanish Peaks in 1926.[19] Thus, if this self-image was published, then we need the evidence of its date of publication (one is not even sure of its creation date). Otherwise, as an unpublished image, it is copyrighted until 2032 (1961 + 70 + 1) under US law. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see the discussion at w:en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commons before closing this deletion request. Quadell (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the discussion above largely focuses in the wrong places. This is an image of Albert Schlechten, not an image by Albert Schlechten, so his death in 1961 is irrelevant. Since I can see no evidence of a remote shutter release for a second camera, I think we can safely say that the photographer is unknown.
- I would also argue that this image was certainly published in 1980 when the museum purchased it and made it available to the public. Whether or not this was the first publication is unknown. Unless the museum can show that it was published with notice or registered by 1985, it is PD -- otherwise it is copyrighted until 120 years after creation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- CommentI am pretty sure that the Schlechten collection was purchased by the Musuem, so if there are copyrights, they DO own them. The 1980 date would correspond to the death of his nephew Chris, who died in 1979 and it's probably his estate that would have been the owner of all the photos at the time they were sold to the museum. I can't say if making prints is "publishing" or not, (if say, they blew up the print to be part of a museum display. Curious as to where the law is on the "published with notice by 1985" comment. (truly curious) that would be 24 years after Albert's death (don't know if he had kids himself), but only 5 years after the sale of the images. Montanabw (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, English isn't always complete clear. The museum's copyright would require "published with notice"(in 1980) or "registered by 1985" (five years after a 1980 publication), not "published with notice by 1985". If publication took place any time before March 2, 1989, the same rules would apply, see File:PD-US table.svg. It's actually simpler, because "Albert Schlechten" does not appear in the USCO database of registrations and renewals after 1978 which suggests that the museum did not register any copyrights with respect to this collection.
- Offering prints of the image for sale is clearly "publishing" within the meaning of the current law, whether or not any were actually sold. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good chart. Hmmm. While publication does include offering images for sale, I would strongly suspect that the Museum's legal eagles slapped the copyright notice on the whole collection the day they signed the check and registered. And if "notice" is slapping the word or symbol "copyright" on a print or collection, I figure they did so. It is true their online thumbnails appear to have no specific date on each print, but... I am able to use the image under fair use directly on WP, so not an issue to me personally. I suspect if we uploaded the entire Schlechten collection to commons, though, all 10,000+ images, the Museum would probably have words with us... Montanabw (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming the museum bought copyrights during their purchase of the negatives in 1980, when did they offer to reproduce and distribute the photographs to the public? If I am not wrong, it is not uncommon for such institutions to hold donated or purchased materials in their archives (to catalogue or storage) and release them much, much later. Furthermore, if the museum did not acquire the copyrights (or permission by whoever is the legal copyright holder), their printing of the material is not recognized by law as publication. Thus, I see two issues we would have to resolve here:
- Does the museum have the copyright to the negative?
- When were prints of the negative offered to the public? Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming the museum bought copyrights during their purchase of the negatives in 1980, when did they offer to reproduce and distribute the photographs to the public? If I am not wrong, it is not uncommon for such institutions to hold donated or purchased materials in their archives (to catalogue or storage) and release them much, much later. Furthermore, if the museum did not acquire the copyrights (or permission by whoever is the legal copyright holder), their printing of the material is not recognized by law as publication. Thus, I see two issues we would have to resolve here:
- DeleteI find it hard to imagine that the museum came into possession of the Albert Schlechten negatives without getting the copyright (or at least an exclusive license to it) as part of the transaction. Not having the copyrights would mean that they could not sell copies from the collection -- even if the sales price only recovered their costs -- until the copyrights expired. That would make the collection a financial burden.
- However, there is an additional factor here. As I noted above, this image is of Albert Schlechten, not taken by him, and its copyright was probably ignored when the museum acquired the whole collection. If that is the case, then the date of the museum's publication of the image is not important because it was without permission of the unknown photographer's heirs. The image is, therefore, "unpublished" within the strict definition of the law. That would mean that it remains under copyright until 120 years after creation.
- Note that this argument applies only to this image -- Jappalang's second question remains critical for all of the images taken by Albert Schlechten. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- On the image of Albert Schlechten, it's highly probable that his brother Alfred took it (they did outdoors stuff together, the collection also holds images of the two of them together up in the mountains. The other possibility is that he set up the camera, went over to his camera, and simply had a friend trip the shutter. I don't know how one characterized the "who is the photographer" question there, but I know for myself that if I set up the tripod, adjust the settings, do the focus and then tell someone else to trip the shutter, it's still "MY" photo. (grin). Overall, I think we need to presume that it is not a free image. Montanabw (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your example raises an interesting thought problem. The law clearly would put the copyright in the hands of the person who actually tripped the shutter, regardless of the setup. However, one might argue that there was no copyright, because the photographer exercised no creativity. I think if it were a still life,or panorama, the "no copyright" argument might hold water, but probably not if it were a portrait. I should add that there is case law on the question of who owns the copyright in images taken by monkeys -- the answer is "no one" because monkeys can't own a copyright.
- The probability that it was his brother raises another possibility -- if the nephew mentioned above was also Alfred Schlechten's heir (his son, maybe?), then the transfer in 1980 probably did include the copyright on this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- On the image of Albert Schlechten, it's highly probable that his brother Alfred took it (they did outdoors stuff together, the collection also holds images of the two of them together up in the mountains. The other possibility is that he set up the camera, went over to his camera, and simply had a friend trip the shutter. I don't know how one characterized the "who is the photographer" question there, but I know for myself that if I set up the tripod, adjust the settings, do the focus and then tell someone else to trip the shutter, it's still "MY" photo. (grin). Overall, I think we need to presume that it is not a free image. Montanabw (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I know that the museum refers to the gift as being from the Schlechten "family" and it was made about a year after the nephew's death. I do not know if Albert had children or if Alfred and then Chris were also his heirs. Good question. Montanabw (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this photograph was published before 1994. It is taken from a website which did not exist in 1994 and which gives the source as IPN archive (i.e., not a public source). — Kpalion(talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on what one means by published. The picture was obviously taken in mid-1950s, without a copyright notice, and used in the official documents. I'd say that the official usage constitutes "publication". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The photo is from before 1953 - it's his UB ID, you can see the stamp on the full sized one [20].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
![[20]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www1.ipn.gov.pl/dokumenty/zalaczniki/1-4745_g.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/203/1587/Jozef_Swiatlo.html&usg=___b7fPGhsPjrndtvSx6293TQ4QD0=&h=142&w=100&sz=4&hl=en&start=6&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=u4vr-ZgwoV1oHM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=66&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djozef%2Bswiatlo%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&ei=FNNEToj9B9OmsQLEy6mSCA){kind=link}
- According to Polish copyright law, a published work is a work which, with author's consent, has been multiplied and made publicly available (utworem opublikowanym jest utwór, który za zezwoleniem twórcy został zwielokrotniony i którego egzemplarze zostały udostępnione publicznie, art. 6, pkt 1 Ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych, Dz.U. 1994 Nr 24 poz. 83). An ID photo is not multiplied (there was only one ID) and is not publicly available (only select individuals could see it, especially as this was an ID of a secret police officer). Official usage does not constitute publication. — Kpalion(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Official usage does not constitute publication." citation needed
- Out of curiosity, do you think that the anonymous photographer of ID is going to sue us? I am really curious what motivates people to waste time on such meta:copyright paranoia, which can only result in damage to the articles.
- PS. IF the photo is deleted, please transfer it to en wiki, where it can be used under a fair use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But see this: {{PD-Polishsymbol}} Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- An excellent point. I'd strongly support changing of license to this, and a government ID very likely is an official, governmental document. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pioturs, I've already explained (with citation) what publication means and why official usage does not necessarily constitute publication. If you think it does, please provide citation for that.
- You know well it's not the point, if someone will sue us or not. The point is, it is Wikimedia policy to use free images only.
- I don't know if the picture is in public domain or not. I'm just saying the correct justification is wrong because the date of first publication is unknown. But the rule of thumb is to assume a work is copyrighted unless you can prove it's not (not the other way around).
- Perhaps the rationale provided by Volunteer Marek would be better. Or perhaps the image may have never been eligible for copyright (see pl:Wikipedia:Praktyczne porady prawne #Zdjęcia, grafiki, skany explaining how ID photographs are not creative enough to be protected by copyright). — Kpalion(talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with improving the rationale, your points 3 and 4 are well taken. How about you update the image's rationale with them and we can close this discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I changed the permission to "ineligible for copyrhight".
- Note to admin: I am withdrawing the deletion request. — Kpalion(talk) 23:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
