Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/15
 |
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}
Author uknown, source unknown, we have only a date - but still PD-Israel is not applicable. Masur (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Math problems ;) Masur (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Author uknown, source known, we have a date - but still PD-Israel is not applicable. Unless some additional data is provided. Masur (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Math problems ;) Masur (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Author uknown, source unknown, we have only a date - but still PD-Israel is not applicable. Masur (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Math problems ;) Masur (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation of http://www.historyofbengal.com/ Albacore (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation of http://www.historyofbengal.com/dilip_maite.html Albacore (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation of http://www.historyofbengal.com/dilip_maite.html Albacore (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clearl copyvio Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- "This photo is copyright.
Szajci pošta 04:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)" Comment from Szajci on delete page - Quote: Szajci pošta 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:AdMeskens (talk) wants this deleted because: "out of focus" -- Kramer Associates (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Leaning to keep, at a typical wikipedia presentation of 200 to 400 pixels it's not as bad as it is at pixel level. Give them a credit for making something identifiable at 1 second exposure - and I'm sure it was handheld. NVO (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is the only image we have of this part of the plane and one of a very few of the interior. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional content, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 00:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 00:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom--Quan (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Purposeless, poor quality, unused and not educationally useful. LMFAO - /let's laugh/ 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this seal is in the public domain, but {{PD-self}} is surely incorrect since the uploader is not the original author. Leyo 01:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: {{PD-self}} is wrong. If we can prove it is PD, we can upload it to Commons, but if we don't prove it is PD, we'd better use them as with non free-fair use in each Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete this one. It's not in use, and we have it in SVG now, and the SVG version IS PD. Fry1989 eh? 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
described as "An old piece of calligraphy further edited by me" --> unverifiable source Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Clear category. 
Szajci pošta 05:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is "clear" because you moved the file into an upper-level category [1]. What was wrong there (other than having only one file)? NVO (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ap%C3%A1tfalva2.jpg&diff=next&oldid=25451337){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily to be deleted, but something is screw here. How can a party logo be the uploader's own work, and a license be granted on that basis? Seems to me the party would hold the copyright. Can someone clear this up? Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The copyright seems questionable here. The metadata says "Copyright: AG09; All Rights Reserved." Dominic (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This is my photo, I put a low opacity watermark AG© and metadata on all of my photos. I'm fine with the license as creative commons as listed below. This photo is the main photo for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bichon, and I doubt anyone would ever notice the watermark or copyright, but I can remove it and re-upload if it really matters. Rocktendo (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Our policy is to accept images with watermarks, but we prefer if they do not. Please upload a clean image over this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This may well be old & public domain, so we may be able to keep it, but I seriously doubt it is original work by the uploader as claimed. Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete DR, User:Kyle the hacker (talk) wants this deleted because: "Original files not linked / Original authors not credited" -- Kramer Associates (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I found and linked five out of the six pictures, but can't find the last (of François Hollande) on Commons. --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The photo of Hollande looks cropped from the file:François hollande 2011.jpg (whose uploader has a past of having his uploads deleted and, even after two blocks in 2008, the situation continued through 2009 and 2010. However this file was uploaded in 2011.) The photo of Montebourg cannot be offered under the GFDL. And it cannot be from 22 July 2011 as claimed. The event occurred on 20 November 2010. Other versions of this image existed on the net before the Commons version (one example from 7 June 2011 : [2]). -- Asclepias (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Incompatible mix of GNU and CC licenses. Although source images are linked, credits are still missing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Empty category / duplicate with Category:Trams in the Charleroi region. Jmh2o (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope personal logo George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope personal collage George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this is the own work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's all over the web prior to this upload and definitely a copyvio. Speedy delete. Warfieldian (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No longer using Mpreciado1 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete as not free (although still in use in en-). NVO (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
reason=Typo, files moved to Category:Sacramentskerk (The Hague) Joris (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 09:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: no free licence User:Sisyph 2011-10-14T18:59:42
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Merchandising (slogan), license not clear. 200.171.249.39 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: own work. It was created with a purpose but it doesn't work. Now is inefficient. User:Farisori 2011-08-16T13:50:46
Kept: Looks useful to me -- fits on a page much easier than usual orientation Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The image/logo is copyright as can be seen at http://www.xecconlight.com/ But I'm not sure if we can change the license to PD-Text since I think that the image is copyrightable. mabdul 10:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
1928 + 70 years is 1998, perfectly possible that someone could have survived until 1942 to make this not PD-old. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Our not knowing the author is not the same as no-author-disclosure Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
unused internal logo Avron (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
unused internal logo Avron (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of permission for use. 129.104.247.2 12:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Trijnstel (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
According to pt.wp it is a "Fotografia de satélite do lago Javary." This however means that it is not own work, the uploader User:Maxwell 002 is not the owner of the satelite. Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a Speedy by User:Takabeg for "copyright violation" to allow for some discussion as image was on-wiki since 2009. --Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The nominators rationale was (copied over by me from the image talkpage):
- According to the Article 27 of the Turkish copyright law, its copyright has not expired. Takabeg (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- We can see four stars on his shoulder mark. Cemal Gürsel was promoted to four star general (O-10) in 1957 (Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 14, p. 326.). This photograph was taken after 1957. This picture is not public domain. Takabeg (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. It's very clear that this photo should not be {{Own work}} of the uploader. Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: It is, in fact, a mirror of the image deleted in 2011, so this is a speedy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Missing evidence of permission, watermark (copyright by Tim Garde) Quan (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violations SyaNHs (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I originally tagged it as no permission. The national anthem, whatever it's copyright status is, is performed by unknown group of people. The copyright status of the recording of this performance is unknown, and unlikely 'own work'. 这是一个演奏的录音，其版权归属演奏者。在这里版权状态不明。--Bencmq (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:义勇军进行曲军乐队演奏版.ogg is identical to this recording, only difference is that this file repeats twice, and there is a 0.5 second delay. So I would say both are questionable. --Bencmq (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright status is not legitimate.--Wcam (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
images with same border found at http://www.tugra-style.com/tugra/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=38&lang=tr . also same border as this, which is higher-res. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
images with same border found at http://www.tugra-style.com/tugra/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=38&lang=tr . also the same as here, which is higher-res. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
uses same border as image from this website (blog post dated 2010, before this upload). also here, where it is higher-res. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio. uses same border as this image, of a tile supposedly on sale since 2008. also the same as here, where it is higher-resolution and offered for sale as a .eps file. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Npic.com claims (as far as I can tell from the translation) that the images on that site may be used for any purpose except commercial purposes (and for that the copyright holder must give permission). On the other hand, it appears to be the Chinese version of deviantart.com, which has a much clearer policy regarding copyrighted works. If they're the same, then the uploader of this image should confirm whether he authored the work to which the calligraphy was added. Amatulic (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wait! I am trying to get a permission to use that border from nipic.com - بلال الدويك (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is the source of the calligraphy? Is that clip art also? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is done by me - بلال الدويك (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is the source of the calligraphy? Is that clip art also? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wait! I am trying to get a permission to use that border from nipic.com - بلال الدويك (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio. same border as here, where it is higher-res and offered for sale as a .eps file. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio - same background as this Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
source provides no date. based on cars in the photo, very unlikely to be PD-old Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of higher-res image from panoramio Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, as all other uploads of this user. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, as all other uploads of this user. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
major portions of this image contain images that are likely copyright to someone else and this is therefore a derivative work for which the Flickr uploader does not own the copyright and has no permission to reporduce under a free licence. Ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Its full of derivative images. Commons cannot keep this image because the pictures are copyrighted. It is a picture of a picture. Only the original photographer or artist holds the rights. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
low resolution, to small. 217.186.29.239 16:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Small resolution and lack of EXIF data, makes me question if this is the uploaders own work. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 16:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: replaced by File:南京大學 沿革圖.jpg User:南中鼎金 2011-10-15T17:32:33
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect licensing. Own work claime and image is taken from http://www.schietsportdrv.nl/wapengroeppistool.html Agora (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Wird nicht gebraucht, gibt deutlich bessere Fotos. Antrag als usprünglicher Uploader der Datei. Reaast (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep That we have other images of the Golden Gate Bridge in better quality is no reason to delete this one.--GeorgHH • talk 21:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Possible copyright violation? Also out of scope: Advertising or self-promotion. User:Missvain 2011-09-05T21:45:29
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
image under copyright: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/graphics/ayer2.jpg Ionutzmovie (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Complting an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: poor-quality copy of File:Iona Sysoevich color.jpg User:Чръный человек 2011-08-08T16:38:45
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old imcomplete DR. --JuTa 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: No FOP for artworks in Finland. Statue created in 1962. User:Jssfrk 2011-08-31T13:20:14
suggest only delete on commons, can stay on french wikipedia where a "quote" is allowed, no copyright issue Hugovoyages (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Sculptor (Kalervo Kallio) died in 1969 --JuTa 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of permission, bad quality. We have more better images about Adam Brody here Quan (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Missing evidence of permission, no EXIF. This is only upload of this user while there were some deleted upload before Quan (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete, copyvio
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: is no longer needed User:Oschtan 2011-09-04T15:15:33
Kept: In use in two places Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
self-promoting picture Honza chodec (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
private photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, botanic name of flower is not named so no encyclopedic value Avron (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, no used Avron (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, no description no encyclopeid value Avron (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
nor really useful collection, not used Avron (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal/promotional photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, mot used Avron (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not additional description, not used Avron (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo / band spam not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo, unused. ~ NVO (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused. ~ NVO (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; no encyclopedic value; image is not used High Contrast (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously uploaded to embarass the depicted person and to vandalize :en article about a living person[3]. Uploader has been indef'd today on :en for BLP violations. --Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation and not notability Reality006 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
[edit]Mickey Mouse will always be owned by the company, regardless how simple the shapes are →AzaToth 19:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not sure what relevance the shapes have, but Mickey is clearly not the work of the Fed, regardless of where it's hosted. Blurpeace 19:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that does not necessarily mean the copyright to this poster is still in effect. If the copyright on this poster has still expired, you can distribute it (I think there was a case very similar to this recently). If you make derivative works which use additional stuff from the character copyright, that is where you can get into issues, but copying the poster (and making derivative works using *just* this material, which does not further infringe on the character, should also be OK). Touchy subject, with all sorts of borderlines, but really this poster has its own copyright, and the decision should follow whatever that status is. Now... this does have a clear copyright notice for Walt Disney Productions. The year is omitted, but I think that was OK for this type of work. That is just for the Mickey drawing. There is an additional copyright notice on the bottom left to "Appreciate America Inc" with a date of 1941. So, a renewal would have been needed in 1968 or 1969 -- if either part was renewed, we definitely need to delete. I have not done a search, but the fact that the National Archives calls this "unrestricted" (making their case on U.S. copyright law presumably) may be significant -- not sure if they did searches either, but given the blatant copyright notices you hope they would. However, the poster is not PD-USGov in any way, shape, or form, so we would need to do some renewal searches to keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - there is also the WDP (Walt Disney Productions) copyright mark; without a year, it is defective; a renewal source would be needed to keep this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, actually, it was not defective without a year -- the year could be omitted from the notice on certain types of works, and graphical works are among them, I'm pretty sure. Lack of renewal is the only way this is PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - there is as well File:"Get in the Scrap" - NARA - 514359.jpg, which is a bit blurry to read the text, but I assume it's the same as the other one. →AzaToth 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I took a shot at finding the renewal at http://babel.hathitrust.org/, but could not. That's not definitive, however, because not all the appropriate records are available there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- The renewals would be linked from here (1968 page and 1969 page). I think everything but some of the music renewal records are online now, so if there is a renewal it is in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anything relating to this under either the artwork or commercial print sections for 1968 and 1969. Disney had a number of renewals, but mostly involving Bambi and Dumbo stuff. As for the second, "Get In The Scrap" one, there is no year listed, so we'd probably have to look in 1970 through 1973 records as well, to cover all the war years, unless we can find a year mentioned. There is a little info on that one here; apparently the poster was done by W.L. Stensgaard & Associates, but no year mentioned and I can't read it there either. this page hints it may have been part of a 1942 campaign but that's not definitive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I also looked through them and I agree. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anything relating to this under either the artwork or commercial print sections for 1968 and 1969. Disney had a number of renewals, but mostly involving Bambi and Dumbo stuff. As for the second, "Get In The Scrap" one, there is no year listed, so we'd probably have to look in 1970 through 1973 records as well, to cover all the war years, unless we can find a year mentioned. There is a little info on that one here; apparently the poster was done by W.L. Stensgaard & Associates, but no year mentioned and I can't read it there either. this page hints it may have been part of a 1942 campaign but that's not definitive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No renewal Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
[edit]previous deletion debate ignored the copyright in the underlying work (see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069950.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Example) Anthony (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is the place to debate, not the Foundation mailing list. And this work seems to be free. This does not imply that every other depiction of Mickey Mouse is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Neither this nor the Foundation mailing list is the place to explain how copyright works, though I did make a short attempt at explaining it, which you can find on the mailing list. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am tempted to speedy close this, but I won't, to give you an opportunity to respond. I don't think you understand the fundamentals here. The poster has a Walt Disney copyright notice on it, as required. So it had a Disney copyright until 1969. For whatever reason, Disney did not renew the copyright as required in 1968-69. Therefore this poster became PD then for lack of renewal.
- Disney does not have any "underlying copyright" in Mickey Mouse -- there is no such concept in the law. All it has is a copyright in almost all of the instances of Mickey Mouse. That is enough to prevent any general use of derivative images of Mickey Mouse, because Disney would argue that any derivative work infringes the copyrights in all but this one of the images of Mickey Mouse.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to speedy close. I only reopened this because David Gerard suggested that I do. Anthony (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't try to blame me - I told you to stop trolling foundation-l - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to speedy close. I only reopened this because David Gerard suggested that I do. Anthony (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. re "Mickey Mouse will always be owned by the company" - that might apply to a trademark, providing that trademark doesn't fall into disuse. But copyright doesn't work that way. WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment that's my original reason when I opened up the discussion, and I've come to understanding that it's not relevant at all. →AzaToth 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it was not ignored. If a renewal on that drawing of Mickey Mouse was found, then it would have been a problem. The copyright on the character copyright is still valid, of course, but distributing that poster would not infringe it. See the recent case involving Gone With the WInd posters (described here) of Warner Bros. vs Avela (decision text here). It's a complex situation because the underlying character copyright and movie copyrights still exist. In that case the district court rules that even distributing exact copies of some posters which originally had no copyright notice was prohibited because they were derivative of the character; the circuit court overruled that aspect: Even if the characters in the respective films are protectable under copyright, Avela is entitled to copy and use images of the characters which fell into the public domain. However, the court did rule that several types of works using the poster images were not just uses of the poster, but additionally infringed on the character, and were not OK -- for one, 3D figures made sort of based on the posters were not really derivative works of the posters, but rather direct derivatives of the film, and were disallowed. A T-shirt using a Dorothy poster would have been fine except they added "There's no place like home" as a caption; the court ruled that resulting T-shirt was closer to the character than just the PD poster and ruled that it was derivative of the character and therefore also not OK. That is why I mentioned you really can only use this specific drawing in derivative works; you would need to be very very careful to not infringe the character in other ways. But in this case, the copyright owner of the character (Disney) made a specific drawing of the character, and did not renew copyright -- that specific drawing then should be PD and can be copied, despite the valid copyright on the character (based on the Steamboat Willie movie) still existing. The situation could be different if there was a third party owning an original work upon which the poster was still derivative -- that is the aspect you mention in your court cases, but there are differences between that and this situation, whereas the Warner Bros. vs Avela ruling is close to a direct parallel. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was ignored, but you (and so far, only you) are now addressing it. One significant difference between "Gone With the Wind" and "Steamboat Willie" is that the latter is a cartoon, however. Another significant difference is that the "Gone With the Wind" poster was published [i]before[/i] the movie, whereas the Mickey Mouse poster was published [i]after[/i] the movie. (Don't you agree?) Anthony (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read. Carl Lindberg did write in his response in the DR about character copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't be so rude. I know how to read. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was fully aware of this Warner Bros court case in my original posting -- I even mentioned it -- and is why I posted what I did earlier. I just did not go look up the links at the time (though I should have mentioned Gone With the Wind to make it easier for others to look up). In some cases, being a cartoon movie may make a difference, but I don't think so here, if the argument is based on the "character" copyright. Additionally, the copyright owner of the original movie is the same entity which made this drawing, and not a third party -- that is more significant to me, as in that case the third party may have a case (though I think it would have to be due to specific elements in this drawing). However, Disney is the owner of both the original and this drawing. Obviously, if the drawing had been renewed but not the poster (there are two copyright notices to deal with here), then the poster would not be OK even if the overall poster copyright had not been renewed. However we can't find a renewal of this drawing either, which is directly from the copyright owner of the character as well. Not allowing distribution of this kind of thing would enable copyright owners to play all sorts of games to defeat copyright expiration by making things "derivative" of their own works; movie studios have tried to prevent distribution of PD films because they were derivative of the unpublished screenplay, which they claimed was still under copyright -- those were denied. However, PD movies which were derivative of a still-copyrighted novel could not be distributed, as they were still derivative, correct (though screenshots of that type of thing should still be fine, as the visual aspects did become PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I just finished reading the court case, and it turns out the court case itself draws a distinction between the Gone With the Wind/Wizard of Oz posters which were made before the movie, and the Tom and Jerry posters which were made after the movie. The court says that "With regard to all later Tom & Jerry posters, AVELA is authorized to make faithful reproductions, but not to reproduce those movie poster images on other products or to make derivative works based on Tom & Jerry", which while not making this particular image infringing, does make it non-free, and not public domain. By the way, my concern is about the copyright on the image of Mickey Mouse, not the character. Marking this image of the poster as public domain has already encouraged someone to extract the image of Mickey Mouse from the image of the poster. It's not clear to me how that is legitimate. Anthony (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, looking above I do see you said "I think there was a case very similar to this recently", which I assume was referring to the Warner Bros case? Sorry I missed that the first time through. I swear I do know how to read. :) Anthony (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a reference to the Warner Bros case. ;-) I should have at least mentioned Gone With the WInd or Tom & Jerry though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said, there are all sorts of borderlines here, and determination of "non-free" is not straightforward. Using just the Mickey image is making a faithful reproduction -- the copyright on the drawing (separate from the copyright on the poster) was not renewed from the looks of it, so extracting that should be OK. Many derivative works would not be OK, as you mention. Some still would. Using a free photo, combined with other stuff, to create a derivative of a character copyright would not be OK -- doesn't change the status of the photo. This is a lot closer case though... if using the Mickey image on a T-shirt could pose copyright issues, which it might, I can see opinions to the contrary. It's also possible that using the Mickey image combined with other stuff may be a problem, depending on what that other stuff is -- I don't think that aspect should cause it to be non-free though. Derivative works which manage to use just this material, and do not infringe on other existing copyrights should be OK, just like normal-- but yes, the "other existing copyrights" are very close by in this case, ruling out more derivative works than "normal", but that does not necessarily make this particular drawing non-free (to me). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this case, and assuming you did the renewal search properly, I'd say that the legality of making "faithful reproductions" of the drawing is not in dispute. I'd question whether or not using the Mickey image with the flag removed is a faithful reproduction (I'm not even sure it's accurate - it makes it look like Mickey is hitchhiking). And I'd also question (based on the Tom and Jerry comment about "other products"), whether or not one could put the image on a T-shirt. If not, I don't think one could say this image is free / public domain. Anthony (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Additionally, the copyright owner of the original movie is the same entity which made this drawing, and not a third party" Are you sure about that? I've seen no evidence of that. Is there a registration of the copyright where we could find out for sure? Anthony (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a separate copyright notice on the drawing to WDP (Walt Disney Productions); the Appreciate America Inc. notice is in the far bottom left. I was mostly concentrating on the Disney renewals in my search; this drawing has a separate copyright over and above the poster, and is the one in question. If the drawing was not renewed but the poster was, we would be entitled to extract the drawing but not use the entire poster. If the drawing was renewed, we couldn't do that (or use the poster, even if the poster copyright itself was not renewed, as it would still be derivative of the copyrighted drawing). I could not find renewals for either though -- Disney did renew a bunch of Bambi drawings from 1941 but that was all I saw. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- What did you check when you checked for renewals? As there is no date on the WDP copyright notice, it's not clear when the drawing was made. Is it possible to find the copy of the drawing which was deposited with the copyright office? Did every single (published) drawing of Mickey Mouse have to be separately copyrighted, registered, deposited, renewed? Anthony (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- There were several renewals made by Walt Disney Productions; I looked in those sections (typically under D). Every individual work had to be renewed, yes, as there are always graphic elements specific to that work which would be copyrightable. If it was part of a compilation which was renewed (hard to check for) that may complicate matters, but they did renew a number of separate Bambi drawings individually. Registration was not a requirement for protection during the first 28 years, so there is no guarantee they ever deposited a copy (though the separate notice on the drawing to WDP makes it pretty clear what their work is. Descriptions of the Appreciate America campaign indicate they contacted others to get permission (there were many other posters), and the drawings were made at the time, which seems to be backed up by the explicit patriotic nature -- so 1941 would seem to be the year. If Disney (or anyone) can produce a renewal record which contains this drawing, then of course we would delete, otherwise hosting the image is fine. The determination of free vs. non-free given the larger-than-normal restrictions on derivative works (which is based on separate copyrights) is the only issue to me. The court did rule that distributing faithful reproductions is fine, something normally under the purview of derivative rights, so the problems only crop up when changes must be made which are themselves derivative of other existing copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way - how sure are we this picture was 1941? (or any specific year?) I ask because I initially misread the description as saying 1943, and sv:wp copied me, so nailing it down would be nice - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright notice on the poster (the one with Appreciate America Inc. as the author at the bottom left) has 1941. And reading about the campaign, it was started in 1941 in the summer and fall (i.e. before Pearl Harbor). So, the drawing is no later than 1941, and highly unlikely to be any earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- While I find the situation to be quite ridiculous (imagine if Microsoft had to renew every single published build of Windows lest that entire build become free to "faithfully reproduce"), it does seem to have been the law. Anthony (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect "derivatives" of an author's own previous work would be treated differently than derivatives of someone else's work -- if some other entity owned the Mickey character copyright, and Disney was licensed to make this drawing for this poster, it would be a problem, since distribution would still be dependent on that original license (this is the main element of the other cases you brought up before). But there is, to me, a difference when authors make use of their own work -- those are not subject to an existing, separate contract or license, so permission for this drawing is basically implied by their failure to renew copyright. Also, of course, there are rampant trademark issues with using this -- the copyright status does not affect that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way - how sure are we this picture was 1941? (or any specific year?) I ask because I initially misread the description as saying 1943, and sv:wp copied me, so nailing it down would be nice - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- There were several renewals made by Walt Disney Productions; I looked in those sections (typically under D). Every individual work had to be renewed, yes, as there are always graphic elements specific to that work which would be copyrightable. If it was part of a compilation which was renewed (hard to check for) that may complicate matters, but they did renew a number of separate Bambi drawings individually. Registration was not a requirement for protection during the first 28 years, so there is no guarantee they ever deposited a copy (though the separate notice on the drawing to WDP makes it pretty clear what their work is. Descriptions of the Appreciate America campaign indicate they contacted others to get permission (there were many other posters), and the drawings were made at the time, which seems to be backed up by the explicit patriotic nature -- so 1941 would seem to be the year. If Disney (or anyone) can produce a renewal record which contains this drawing, then of course we would delete, otherwise hosting the image is fine. The determination of free vs. non-free given the larger-than-normal restrictions on derivative works (which is based on separate copyrights) is the only issue to me. The court did rule that distributing faithful reproductions is fine, something normally under the purview of derivative rights, so the problems only crop up when changes must be made which are themselves derivative of other existing copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- What did you check when you checked for renewals? As there is no date on the WDP copyright notice, it's not clear when the drawing was made. Is it possible to find the copy of the drawing which was deposited with the copyright office? Did every single (published) drawing of Mickey Mouse have to be separately copyrighted, registered, deposited, renewed? Anthony (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a separate copyright notice on the drawing to WDP (Walt Disney Productions); the Appreciate America Inc. notice is in the far bottom left. I was mostly concentrating on the Disney renewals in my search; this drawing has a separate copyright over and above the poster, and is the one in question. If the drawing was not renewed but the poster was, we would be entitled to extract the drawing but not use the entire poster. If the drawing was renewed, we couldn't do that (or use the poster, even if the poster copyright itself was not renewed, as it would still be derivative of the copyrighted drawing). I could not find renewals for either though -- Disney did renew a bunch of Bambi drawings from 1941 but that was all I saw. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read. Carl Lindberg did write in his response in the DR about character copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was ignored, but you (and so far, only you) are now addressing it. One significant difference between "Gone With the Wind" and "Steamboat Willie" is that the latter is a cartoon, however. Another significant difference is that the "Gone With the Wind" poster was published [i]before[/i] the movie, whereas the Mickey Mouse poster was published [i]after[/i] the movie. (Don't you agree?) Anthony (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Found two more instances of the drawing, sans poster: a pin and a watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony (talk • contribs)
How does this case differ from the Fleischer Superman cartoon videos and screenshots, which have been kept after repeated discussions? -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. I Get Exasperated at People Who Squawk" (Donald Duck) - NARA - 513868.tif →AzaToth 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- As well, though they haven't been nominated (yet!), File:"Bear poster" (Disney) - NARA - 513938.tif, File:"Get in the Scrap" - NARA - 514359.tif, and File:"Come On Fellows^ The U.S.O's for the U.S.A." - NARA - 514069.jpg could probably use some scrutiny, too. Dominic (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I made the File:Donald Duck - Derivative of NARA 513868.svg and it is a pretty close mechanical reproduction of the original, even if I prefer to call it a derivative work. I believe it is a derivative work of a work already in the public domain, and yes I'm veeeery interested in how you are going to figure out if this should be kept or deleted. My guess, its deleted and no-one is able to give an decent explanation why. Jeblad (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Work by Disney Studio for US WWII effort. The Disney Company certainly retains the trademark to the Mickey Mouse character, but as to this particular poster I will not second guess the US National Archives which has dubbed it PD. Even if that was not so, the reason Jameslwoodward closed the discussion earlier by noting no renewal would by itself be sufficient to put this into the public domain per US law. Infrogmation (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Although the poster is technically public domain, its status is essentially the equivalent of a No Derivatives license due to other Mickey Mouse copyrights. This doesn't seem "free" enough to be hosted on Commons, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept No renewal. Tricky, but OK. Obviously, we need to warn that some derivative works may not be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
[edit]- File:Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam (Mickey Mouse) NARA 513869.png
- File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.jpg
_NARA_513869.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%22_-_NARA_-_513869.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
It's a derivative work of the copyrighted character, and it's certainly not free. Yes, some copyright expired due to non-renewal, but it was the copyright on the new, additional expression -- the American flag, the rest of the poster, the separately copyrighted drawing of the pre-existing character. No way it can affect the underlying copyright on Mickey Mouse. And that underlying copyright makes this derivative work non-free. Some examples copied from the previous DR. There was a case when a company found that copyright on 16 episodes (episodes 80-95) of "The Andy Griffith Show" was not renewed, and began to distribute them. But the court decided that these episodes were derivative works from the previous 79 episodes, so they were still copyrighted (see [4], [5]). There was another case where the copyright registration on the "Pygmalion" movie (1938 screen adaptation authorised by Shaw) had expired due to a failure to renew. But the court found that the movie anyway can't be distributed and that it was still copyrighted, because it was based on the copyrighted Shaw's play (see Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 1979)). This case is pretty much the same -- additional material, created especially for this poster is in public domain, but the poster is still a DW from the underlying work, and it's still copyrighted as whole.
%22_-_NARA_-_513869_-_cropped_and_tidied.png){kind=link}
From what I see, the "keep" result of the previous nomination came from the incorrect interpretation of Warner Bros. v. Avela. In fact that case supports "deletion" decision as well. Yes, the court found that some posters of some copyrighted characters were free due to non-renewal. However, those posters were published before the corresponding movies/cartoons. The court found that the posters published after the cartoon (Tom & Jerry) are not free and can only be distribution with permission of the copyright holder, Warner Bros. (in that case the permission was provided):
We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.'s authorization. See Russell, 612 F.2d at 1128 (“Therefore, since exhibition of the film ‘Pygmalion’ necessarily involves exhibition of parts of Shaw's play, which is still copyrighted, plaintiffs here may prevent defendants from renting the film for exhibition without their authorization.”). Warner Bros. has granted such authorization to the extent it has averred that it will not challenge the reproduction of movie “posters as posters (or lobby cards as lobby cards).”
In our case the poster was published ~13 years after the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, hence it's not free.
tl;dr -- all works with Mickey Mouse are not free until at least 2024. It doesn't matter if the copyright on these works was renewed or not. It's interesting that all these things are written in the w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Movies guideline, and Mickey Mouse was used as an example there. Trycatch (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1) What's really the point in opening yet a third deletion nomination unless you can raise some new point which has not already been significantly discussed above? 2) How does this case differ from the Fleischer Superman cartoon videos and screenshots, which have been kept after repeated discussions? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well... the recent ruling, as quoted by Trycatch above, does indicate that a pre-existing cartoon character copyright (with regards to the details on how you draw the character) can cause issues for things like this. Warner Brothers was not objecting to same-type reproduction use, but the above quote even puts that in doubt. I can't find the quote on which I based my previous keep vote above in the text of the ruling; I'm now thinking I was reading a defense brief by accident (i.e. that was their argument, but was not what the court ruled). So, a lot of my argument above is moot. Any additional material (such as the flag graphic here, if extracted) would be OK, but I'm now thinking this may be a problem. It's a little odd that this situation is the same when it is the same author with the original and the derivative (which they failed to renew), and indeed Warner Brothers did not try to prevent straight reproductions (probably thinking they would be allowed), and so the court allowed them -- but the wording above makes it sounds like Warner may not have even had to allow that. The "Andy Griffith Show" case also mentioned is a somewhat similar situation (later episodes were derivative of the same characters). As the Warner Bros case mentions, the "derivative work" determination, when it comes to character copyright on a single image, is a lot stronger with cartoon-type characters. I'm not sure screenshots of photographic films are an issue, but given these cases, the cartoon one may well be. The Warner Bros ruling was from May 2011, so yes that could change things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Trycatch's compelling argument. It's a derivative work. --Xijky (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Trycatch and Clindberg. Also see Siegel v. Warner Bros. and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. which establish the legal concept of character copyrights. Unless this poster was using a PD version of Mickey Mouse that predated the copyrighted depictions, these images are still subject to copyright claim from Disney. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- CommentTwo copyright status here. One, the non-renewal of US Gov, and the second, copyrights to Walt Disney Pictures. The matter is trying to find if copyrights were or not renewed by Walt Disney Pictures. If it was, then the image can't be here.--Sdrtirs (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Three copyright issues here. One the poster (not US Gov, but a private entity), and two this drawing of Mickey. From what I could tell, neither were renewed. If either had been renewed, this would have been easy. The third one however is the character (drawing) copyright on Mickey, established by the Steamboat Willie movie (which was renewed, thus the character copyright still exists). There was some debate on if duplication of this image is OK, with just derivative works being a problem, but the recent ruling indicates that even this is still a derivative work of the generalized Mickey drawings associated with the character despite the lack of rewnewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Trycatch's careful, compelling and clear explanation of the law. @AnonMoos - Trycatch has demonstrated a significant new point by demonstrating clearly that the analysis of the situation that was given by others is incorrect and misleading. Actually, unless someone can demonstrate that trycatch is incorrect (I can't - his analysis seems spot on to me) then after this deletion has closed the other images mentioned here such as the the Fleischer Superman cartoons and the other NARA cartoons should be considered with fresh eyes aswell, as they also may also be prime candidates for deletion.Ajbpearce (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment After further reasearch, The issue is not clear but I support removing these images or asking for a legal opinion from wikimedia. There is an excellent blog post available by Willem Patry that outlines the issues in clear language (although he rather unhelpfully concludes that these are ' public domain works that can't be copied' which is not helpfull for us!). The essential question is that: "where there is an authorised derivative work, shouldn't the original material included in the derivative work fall into the public domain when the derivative work falls into the public domain?" So far, we have assumed that they do (and we are not alone in this, as the many republishers of the fleishman cartoons appear to hold the same opinion). However, the research and cases quoted by Trycatch seem to show a strong element of doubt that this is actually the case. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I've argued previously, Patry's conclusion is basically correct: These are public domain works that can't be copied (except for very narrow uses), due to the underlying character copyrights. This is similar to how the concept of de minimis works, but is even more restrictive. The republishers of the Fleishman cartoons aren't violating copyrights because they are reproducing the cartoons within a very narrow use (and without any modification or derivation of the works). It's perfectly legal for us (or anyone else) to host this NARA poster, but it is not a "free work" in the "free culture" sense. Thus we probably shouldn't be hosting it on Commons (although the line isn't well defined in our policy). The derivatives of this poster that we are currently hosting are even more problematic, and may in fact be violating Disney's copyrights. So those should definitely be deleted in my opinion. It's unlikely you'll get a legal opinion on this from the WMF as it would be risky for them to go on record in the event that Disney actually sued us (which they like to do). Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- What I am dubious about is that there is such a thing as a "public domain work that can't be copied" I don't think that is a correct way to look at the situation. Better to say that this work has some original elements ( now in the public domain) and some derivative elemnts ( still copyrighted). It is copyright 101 that the right to authorise and control derivative works is the exclusive right of the copyright holder (here Disney via Steamboat Willie). To quote Stephen Fishman in his Nolo book on the public domain: "The original work remains copyrighted, as do those portions of the original included within the derivative work." I can't see the basis for saying that the work as a whole was in the public domain because this work only licensed the design of Mickey for reproduction in this poster. We don't have that license to further reproduce it - so we are infringing on the copyright of Mickey if because to host it at commons because to do so is an infringement of the exclusive right of Disney to create and to control derivative works of that visual copyright. That is copyright infringement just as much as it would be for a poster of steamboat willie or the latest Pixar flick IMHO Ajbpearce (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I've argued previously, Patry's conclusion is basically correct: These are public domain works that can't be copied (except for very narrow uses), due to the underlying character copyrights. This is similar to how the concept of de minimis works, but is even more restrictive. The republishers of the Fleishman cartoons aren't violating copyrights because they are reproducing the cartoons within a very narrow use (and without any modification or derivation of the works). It's perfectly legal for us (or anyone else) to host this NARA poster, but it is not a "free work" in the "free culture" sense. Thus we probably shouldn't be hosting it on Commons (although the line isn't well defined in our policy). The derivatives of this poster that we are currently hosting are even more problematic, and may in fact be violating Disney's copyrights. So those should definitely be deleted in my opinion. It's unlikely you'll get a legal opinion on this from the WMF as it would be risky for them to go on record in the event that Disney actually sued us (which they like to do). Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete With this it is already agreed that the file cannot be used for any commercial purposes. And in the discussions of the original poster ([6], [7]) it is concluded the same about verbatim reproductions of the original image. This way the current presence of these files at Commons (including other NARA war posters of the series) under PD tag suggests that Wikimedia Commons interprets the Public Domain something like "to reproduce strictly verbatim and strictly for personal non-commercial use". With such definition of PD there is actually no non-PD items in this world. In particular the entire Flickr archives should be loaded to Commons.
That does ridicule the whole concept of PD, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia all together. The damage made by this to an international project is way over-passing any possible damage even if Mr. Mickey is not at Commons another "eternity minus one year".
If the presence of Disney heroes here is an absolute must for too many participants, then at least it should be a separate template made for this particular series of posters, like sayLtd-PD-Disney. IMHO --Neolexx (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.jpg){kind=link}
- * Delete. Okay, I'm convinced. This image might be technically PD per US law, but even if so the copyrighted character is so inherent in the image as to prevent it being freely reused. It therefore doesn't belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Per Trycatch's argument and unanimous agreement with it. Deleted all three works listed as well as File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png and File:Mickey Mouse - Come on Gang, All Out for Uncle Sam.svg. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
%22_-_NARA_-_513869_-_cropped_and_tidied.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Files copied to wikilivres:Category:Mickey Mouse. Yann (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Not the work of the user, the RDS 2 brand and logo belongs to Bell Media єmarsee 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - Unlikely to be own work Kramer Associates (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
suspect it isnt own work, because there is not any meta date Coekon (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
low resolution makes it unlikely to be own work, probably pulled from a website Vera (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
low resolution makes it unlikely to be own work Vera (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
low resolution makes it unlikely to be own work Vera (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a newspaper page from 1953 (Soviet Union) -> not free. ~ NVO (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly derivative work of copyrighted materiel Ricjac (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
this picture appears to be cropped from a larger picture that had a getty images copyright on it. Not certain of copyright or if subject depicted is really what it is titled. See talk page. JoannaSerah (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not enough information to determine if PD-Japan Kramer Associates (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
fix tipo, "Aritmetic" --> "Arithmetic". substituted by German (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time please use {{Rename}} it is a waste of time and disk space to delete and reload a file when it just needs to be renamed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
not sure Purbaya (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It appears to be a blend of derivative images. Better two be safe than sorry. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the words "I created this work entirely by myself" by uploader en:User:Rumpelstinkin are correct. The uploader contributed a lot of copyvios. This is a professional press photo. A professional photographer will not upload first so many copyvios to Wikipedia.
The same uploader was able to make a photo of the same moment from a different perspective, en:File:Luis_Fortuno_inauguration2.jpg. Another evidence that the own work claims for both files are untrue.
To get rid of this copyvio uploaders uploads on this project. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by TheAwesomestOne (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, non encyclopedic person MoiraMoira (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination appears incorrect as this person is on the encyclopaedia, for example referenced at nl:Freaknacht and many other pages as listed at Speciaal:VerwijzingenNaarHier/Sander_Hoogendoorn and so by definition encyclopaedic and in scope as there is an obvious argument for future educational use. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in scope. Multichill (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As per Fæ. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
statue sign, but without any education purpose Honza chodec (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image accompanies File:Erich F Reuter - Die Windsbraut II 01.jpg and other images of the same sculpture.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep An info sign is part of the sculpture, sometimes attached to the sculpture and sometimes apart.--Gerardus (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Beleg für das Erstellungsjahr und den korrekten Namen der Skulptur. --axel (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Yes, if we have the statue, the sign with it is always nice to have, no valid reason for deletion presented Courcelles (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value Avron (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: While COM:SCOPE does contemplate allowing the uploading of a small number of images for use on personal user pages of another Wikimedia project, this image has not been used since 2007 and its one usage was archived a long time ago. Therefore, it does not appear to be within scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a copyvio-speedy by User:Missvain for "Taken from the Colonial Williamsburg website, without permission. The content of their website is copyrighted. The description on the website does not state that this photograph is from 1910, I'd rather not risk it. http://www.history.org/Foundation/thenAndNow/". --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that the image is sufficiently old to be public domain. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No evidence given that couls persuade us that this photo is really so old so that the used licence format can be used. Is this photo really so old? 80.187.106.144 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This image may to be changed to licence PD-India and PD-1923. Please do the needful
Dcmpuri (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes this is real old image, approximate construction time between 1923-1930.
124.124.211.113 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Waiting for your kind reply. If you have any query please ask.
Dcmpuri (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The license tag which is on it, {{PD-Art}}, is nonsense -- it applies only to photographs of old paintings.
- There is no evidence that it was first published in the USA and it certainly was not published before 1923, so the suggestion of PD-1923 is also not good.
- It might be PD-India. In India, the rule is 60 years after publication, but using that will require evidence of where and when it was first published. Without that, we must delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jim,
Great ! It should be PD-India. I got information, Photos are Public Domain 60 years after publication in India. The photograph was taken by Swami Nigamananda himself only and it was published by "Shanti Ashram or Assam Bangiya Saraswata Matha" (Swami Nigamananda's own religious foundation,established in 1912).
Is this information OK to you?
Dcmpuri (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You need to show us exactly where and when this particular image was published. I mean no disrespect to you, but your simple assertion is not enough. We need evidence, or, at the very least, the basis for your assertion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jim,
I appreciate your reply, as i said above, it was publishd by Assam Bangiya Saraswata Matha. Please check the link : http://www.absmath.org/en/ABSM/Gallery2.htm (see the image No.1), but no one can say the exact publication date, hence date may be anonymous. Your kind attentation and help is required to clear this things. However the decision is upto you.
Hoping for a reply from your side.
Dcmpuri (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again -- for the third time -- where and when was it first published? That means we need a specific book or periodical and a specific date. The name of the publisher is not important to the discussion. Without the date of first publication, we cannot use {{PD-India}}. And, by the way, www.absmath.org does not exist or, at least, is not running at the moment. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry not to Interpret your view. Actually this image collected from the magazine Arya Darpan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ARYA_DARPAN.gif . Exact date is unknown to me but can say it not before 1923.
Please try to open this site again, http://www.absmath.org
Thanks Dcmpuri (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Almost certainly published (see above) before 1951, therefore PD-India Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: not official logo User:Disguise87 2011-09-07T08:44:52
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Prevents file renaming (Uploader requested) Papatt (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you please be a little less sphynxic, User:Papatt? What does prevent file renaming? My provisional redirect? Or your deletion proposal? --Tuvalkin (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 16:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: imposible subir articulos que puedan satisfacer los moderadores User:Fcmsh 2011-09-08T03:39:51
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Uploader request User:Nevit 2011-08-13T11:08:45
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: повреждён (defective) User:Insoco 2011-08-07T16:46:20
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Hammerley died 2009. Not PD. User:Syrcro 2011-07-29T10:52:56
- The source, from the website of the respected British newspaper The Guardian, has the caption "Lesson One by Frederick Hammersley Photograph: Public Domain". XARAdNAM • MAИbAЯAX 13:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The phot may be PD, but the painting is not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - seems unlikely that uploader is copyright holder Kramer Associates (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Username WineSavant is Wine Savant, LLC which has a U.S. trademark on the name Wine Savant. The jpg picture depicted is the cover of Wine Savant Magazine from October/November 2005 of which Wine Savant, LLC is owner of the copyrighted material contained therin. Kramer Associates comments regarding copyright permission is without merit. -unsigned comment by User:Winesavant (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011
Please send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and mention this file. This lets Commons verify that you, the copyright holder, released it under the stated license. --Kramer Associates (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio unless we have an OTRS permission, and it seems we haven't. Rosenzweig τ 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incolplete DR. --JuTa 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: A lighter djvu copy of the same file has been uploaded: File:Compendio del trattato teorico e pratico sopra la coltivazione della vite.djvu User:Alex brollo 2011-08-26T08:10:04
Deleted: superseeded by djvu →AzaToth 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: No se deben realizar firmas de personas vivas, aclaración de Jimmy Wales en su página de discusión con dabit100, [8] User:Dabit100 2011-07-15T21:39:38
- Quote: Jimbo Wales: "Thanks. I am appalled at the rudeness of someone who would ask for an autograph and then publish it. With only a few rare exceptions we should not publish people's signatures.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)" --Dabit100 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete — This does not appear likely to be one of the exceptions. — Alarob (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Signatures of living people are public domain →AzaToth 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Falsches Bild und Information, gezeigt wird ein Ausziehgleis des BW Dieringhausen, man kann das Bahnhofsgebäude erkennen bei Bildvergleich 87.184.18.24 05:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
richtiges Bild bei: Oberbergische Eisenbahnen, strecke aktuell, Dieringhausen-Olpe, erstes bild links blickrichtung bf dieringhausen
- If name is incorrect, just use the {{Rename}} template. --P199 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 23:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1917 photo; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. The nominator for deletion has failed to identify the author of the image, or give a source that identifies the author of the image, hence the second requirment is not proved to be unfullfilled. 84.23.155.84 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dear not-logged in user, you've misunderstood the template's text as well as Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
See last DR. See template: "Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template." Second condition not fulfilled. Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per consensus in previous DR - Jcb (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep would you kindly suggest a way how to prove that there is no known author? --Bencmq (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Still no evidence at all. DRs are no vote!
@Bencmq: there is no sure way to proof. But as the template says "Reasonable evidence must be presented..." - at least... If you cannot proof anything here it is not my problem - it is yours. Yes, this license template is unusable in most cases. Not my problem. Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- speedy close - per concensus in previous DRs, unnecessary renomination - Jcb (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. While Saibo is correct that both components of the test need to be explicitly addressed in a DR, it is impossible to prove a negative such as this one. As for "reasonable evidence", one must focus on the word "reasonable" - it is unreasonable to interpret that requirement in a manner that renders this template unusable. The source does not identify an author, and an internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author either. As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable and prudent confirmation of the anonymous status of this image. Saibo, if you continue to be concerned about whether the second test is met, your issue would appear to be with the template generally, and likely all images that use it, rather than with this one image, and perhaps you should raise that concern in a broader forum. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The template is just used wrong - it may be correct in some rare cases where the evidence is much better than just "internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author" ... this is an pre internet age photo! And you know: Google and TE do by far find not all images even if they are on the web. Pardon - what about books? Experts? What is the provenance of the photo? Btw: the template had a DR which was closed without a reason. --Saibo (Δ) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need to be that unsure (without(!) notifying the reuser of this - this is against our mission of a free content repo). If we are not user we simply cannot use a photo. That simple. Read what the template claims, compare with what we really know and compare with our project goal. Btw: there is nothing different with your other proposed template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am hardly one to take the "looks old" approach to the determination of public domain status but here even I feel you are taking an unreasonably strict approach to this. At this point, we are just talking in circles. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW abf «Cabale!» 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: mostly text, other parts DM Jcb (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsens, keine Schöpfungshöhe und menschliche Darstellung ist Beiwerk. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It may well be that this can be kept, because it may be old and public domain, but User:Teodor Stoica claims it as original copyrighted work he is releasing, and that is almost certainly false. Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- There seem to be similar problems with quite a few of this user's uploads, although I have little doubt that the many recent digital photos he has uploaded are, indeed, his own legitimate work. - Jmabel ! talk 06:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - old anonymous photo, publisher is Kerpel Izsó. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter, any chance you could look through his uploads and try to get the credits right? There's a lot of this sort of thing, and probably very few people who could sort it out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did two of the old ones: File:Aradi fopiac..jpg and File:188750 188924141dfdf143450 100000775966092 393654 4489294 n.jpg (file name suggests an internet source). For the rest, the postcards themselves give too little information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter, any chance you could look through his uploads and try to get the credits right? There's a lot of this sort of thing, and probably very few people who could sort it out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per precautionary principle. Not enough information given to know if this image was really published anonymously before 1941. Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploads by Martyndorey
[edit]
- File:D_distribution_Murphy.png
- File:D distribution Zoro.png
- File:D distribution Tail dependence.png
- File:D distribution Threshold.png
- File:D distribution Tail Independence.png
- File:D distribution Constant Positive.png
- File:D distribution Constant Negative.png
- File:D distribution Banana.png
Very low resolution makes me suspect a copyvio. The uploader was on Commons for 2hrs and uploaded 8 such low resolution graphics, some claimed as own work, the rest lacking source. None had a licence - after npd, an IP came along and tagged as {{GFDL}}. Even if these images are own work, without description they are meaningless - they appear to be some sort of statistical voodoo, but statistics need to be about something, and we simply have no idea what. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 17:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J._Patrick_Fischer#http:.2F.2Fcommons.wikimedia.org.2Fwiki.2FFile:Historische_Provinzen_Libyens.png User:Kirk 2011-08-24T15:05:55
To say it here,too: I just made the translation into German. The original image was File:Libya uzemi.png, so you have to talk with en:User:Morwen about the borders. --Patrick (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use; does not seem to be a copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: if there are problems with the accuracy of the borders etc., please amend all affected images rather than deleting them. There are map workshops here and at various wikipedias. Rosenzweig τ 19:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- File:Erlebnisschwimmbad.jpg
- File:Restaurant Chicorée.jpg
- File:Gästezimmer.jpg
- File:Hotelansicht.jpg
- File:La Luna Bar.jpg
out of scope (advert) or permission missing. The images File:Hotelansicht.jpg File:Gästezimmer.jpg File:Restaurant Chicorée.jpg File:Erlebnisschwimmbad.jpg were used for the deleted (advert) article Chronik Parkhotel Altmühltal. The images are official marketing photos of this hotel or the city: examples: http://www.aktiv-parkhotel DOT de/tagen/location/ → http://www.aktiv-parkhotel DOT de/tn_img/239150_gaestezimmer.jpg http://www.naturpark-altmuehltal DOT de/hotel/parkhotel_altmuehltal-79.htm → http://www.naturpark-altmuehltal DOT de/tn_img/537639_parkhotel_gubzenhausen_brunnen.jpg-
therefore we would need a written permission from the photographer.
Saibo (Δ) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
unknown author, given source is unreachable. Avron (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The source given is Bozzini's drawing of endoscope,http://www.framedadonna.it/la_cenni.php Since he died in 1809 I think it is out of copyright. // Liftarn (talk)
- http://www.framedadonna.it is not reachable, the "real" source is a book or something similiar. If author is really Bozzini then he should be mentioned as author.--Avron (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- The description clearly says "Bozzini's drawing of endoscope". // Liftarn (talk)
- How we can check that this is true without any source? If it is common know that this is work of Bozzini, then we can keep it.--Avron (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The description clearly says "Bozzini's drawing of endoscope". // Liftarn (talk)
- http://www.framedadonna.it is not reachable, the "real" source is a book or something similiar. If author is really Bozzini then he should be mentioned as author.--Avron (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Also see File:Bozzini Lichtleiter.jpg. // Liftarn (talk)
- Keep - totally imaginary problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no convincing argument that the drawing is not by Bozzini. Rosenzweig τ 19:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Following Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Awatpishdad the image was tagged as PD-EU-anonymous. The author is not anonymous but credited in the source with "Swain". Given that there is an not anonymous author (of whom I not know anything) I cant use PD-EU-anonymous. This file not has any valid copyright tag. Martin H. (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - probably a studio. I found a George Edwin Swain born 1866, but that was a local photographer in Bexhill. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I correct myself: The credit is "phot. by Swaine". --Martin H. (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/rcs_photographers/entry.php?id=437 - latest activity 1938. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- And death? And possible to conclude that this is his work, maybe a second reference? --Martin H. (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- NPG has the same final date: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp19222/frank-arthur-swaine /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Checked that source already to see what Swaines they have, in the hope that they have the required date of death or a second reference that Swaine in the book=Swaine in the NPG. Regretably: nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- NPG has the same final date: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp19222/frank-arthur-swaine /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- And death? And possible to conclude that this is his work, maybe a second reference? --Martin H. (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/rcs_photographers/entry.php?id=437 - latest activity 1938. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I correct myself: The credit is "phot. by Swaine". --Martin H. (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no proof that the author died before 1941. Rosenzweig τ 19:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
the file description explains that this file "was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date". The file description is silent about where it was published before January 1, 1951. Evidence is only given that it was published 1979 and thats not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - of course it was also published at the time - otherwise it would not have gotten into a Western book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Strange logic. Incomplete. With reference to the main question of publication in the Ukraine even absurde. Pi equals exactly three. --Martin H. (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Pi equals 3" is what the Bible says: First Book of Kings 7:23. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Strange logic. Incomplete. With reference to the main question of publication in the Ukraine even absurde. Pi equals exactly three. --Martin H. (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information about creator and date of first publication, so deleted per precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that this low-resolution calligraphy was created by a random user from ireland Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- But.. I did. Oppose
- Did you create the roundel from scratch? If so, could you provide it in a higher-resolution? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, sort of. I used Paint Shop Pro 7, it was a long time ago, and was made in a rush to produce some sort of calligraphy was would not be deleted straight away. You'll notice the lack of honorifics. When viewed in High res it looked terrible. I've no problem replacing it for that reason, but, I dislike the implicit accusation of dishonesty. --Irishpunktom (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean, sort of? I'm sorry to be accusatory, but 99.9% of the time, if you have a low-res professional-looking image, it was either grabbed from a website or is a composite of things grabbed from websites. Right now I'm going through all our other "original" Muhammad calligraphy, and they are all composites of things found from around the internet, even though the users had the best of intentions and were trying to contribute useful artworks. So you are saying that you drew the green and yellow border longhand by yourself? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)- Never mind, I just found the source of this image, where it was posted at least four months before this image was first uploaded on en.wiki (8/23/05), along with ten other graphics in a similar style. Can you explain this, Tom? I get really tired of people claiming that things are their own when they are just grabbed from the internet... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, sort of. I used Paint Shop Pro 7, it was a long time ago, and was made in a rush to produce some sort of calligraphy was would not be deleted straight away. You'll notice the lack of honorifics. When viewed in High res it looked terrible. I've no problem replacing it for that reason, but, I dislike the implicit accusation of dishonesty. --Irishpunktom (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't look quite similar to this one? There are other variants all of which are widely used in a large number of websites.
--Rafy (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this image appears all over the internet. The thing is, it was uploaded here a really long time ago, so it's impossible to know--based on the images alone--whether we took it from them or they took it from us. I haven't found anything at archive.org that predates this upload, but this file is so ubiquitous that there is no way to check every appearance of it on the internet. (And if it was originally from somewhere else, and that other page is now dead, you wouldn't be able to find the original source page with a google image search today.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)never mind, I found the source - see above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. User said they made it, so there are no grounds for deletion without assuming bad faith for no reason. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't remove. The user claims that he made it, then no reason to delete it without any strong negation to the statement. Pars.dextrum (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete based on the evidence provided by Calliopejen1. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: There is a similar-type image on the Arabic Wikipedia ( http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Prophet-Mohammed-Name.gif ) that has a GNU License. Does this look okay to upload, so we have an image to fall back on just in case this gets deleted, or would there be similar concerns with that image? --JN466 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's another copyvio that was just deleted from commons... Looks like an ar.wiki user reuploaded it to get around the deletion here. Let me track that one down... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was the same user who just reuploaded all the same copyright violations at ar.wiki after participating in the deletion discussions here. This shit just makes me want to pull my hair out. I've tried to communicate on the administrators noticeboard on ar.wiki and left copyvio tags on the images, but we'll see. Obviously it depends whether they understand my English. Also, developing-world wikis tend to be full of copyvio images - I doubt this is a huge priority for them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: available on the web months before it was first uploaded to the English wikipedia, see [9]. Rosenzweig τ 20:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Logos by 2KFproductions
[edit]personal logo with the username for use on the userpage. Not in use on any userpage, therefore out of scope.
Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is neither {{PD-textlogo}} nor {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, if the decision is delete, please place a request at w:WP:REFUND to request undeletion for fair use on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't explained why you believe this image doesn't come under the umbrella of {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}}. Given that you've used an absolute, it behoves you to tell us why. Once we have a PoV to argue against then discussion can begin. Meanwhile, this is a South African Army outfit, ergo they work for the government. This design will therefore appear on official government communiques. This being so it is covered under the SA PD. I thang you, I'm here all week. try the veal. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- SA-Exempt only appears applies to official texts of legal or administrative nature. This isn't a text, and it's questionable if it's of "legislative, administrative or legal nature." Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It will have appeared in official texts even if only to give the thumbs up for its design. Therefore it is part of an official government text. I do like you sneaky quoting though... what you should have done is keep the words that came before your quote, i.e. "because it is an image of or from an official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or an official translation of such a text." based on this it appears that an image can be part of a text. "Text" being a synonym for document, not text characters. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- When the South African Government finished their integration of the SANDF in 2003, they adopted the new symbols of the South African Military, including this new insignia for the Army. That means it is part of a legislative or administrative text. It's PD, and it stays. Fry1989 eh? 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It will have appeared in official texts even if only to give the thumbs up for its design. Therefore it is part of an official government text. I do like you sneaky quoting though... what you should have done is keep the words that came before your quote, i.e. "because it is an image of or from an official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or an official translation of such a text." based on this it appears that an image can be part of a text. "Text" being a synonym for document, not text characters. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me Fred, but what the flying shit is your problem? A little good faith and less dickery will go a long way. I didn't sneaky quote anything, and I don't have any hidden desire to delete something just for the hell of it. In fact, I misread that part as "image of administrative text", not "image of or from an administrative text."
- Regardless, this isn't an image from an official text; it's a stand-alone image. While your point does change the complection of the issue, I'm still not sure it qualifies. When it adopted the new symbol, was it described via text, or was it actually drawn? It makes a big difference (per COM:COA). Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- My "flying shit" was purely the missing words from your quotation which changed the whole meaning/implication of what you were saying. Whether accidental or not it still resulted in your saying something that was incorrect.
- Do you know the process by which illustrations are processed? Here's a typical example, one I see no reason why the South African government department wouldn't follow. A request is made in writing that the illustration be created, along with requirements and possibly ideas. At this stage it is in word form. The illustrator then creates several images and submits them back to the client, in image form. The client then chooses one, sends it back to the illustrator with "I'll have this one" stapled to it. That example demonstrates how it is extremely likely that the actual image has been used in an official communique thereby instantly making it public domain. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The SANDF is administered through the Presidency and Ministry of Defence of South Africa. That means that the new symbols, flags, ensigns, and badges where adopted through administrative text. Whether the image was actually illustrated in the text or just described, is splitting hairs. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know the process by which illustrations are processed? Here's a typical example, one I see no reason why the South African government department wouldn't follow. A request is made in writing that the illustration be created, along with requirements and possibly ideas. At this stage it is in word form. The illustrator then creates several images and submits them back to the client, in image form. The client then chooses one, sends it back to the illustrator with "I'll have this one" stapled to it. That example demonstrates how it is extremely likely that the actual image has been used in an official communique thereby instantly making it public domain. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is time for a keep. There has never been sufficient proof that {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} doesn't apply. Unless there's any new information to the contrary, the license is accurate. Fry1989 eh? 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show it's public domain, not for someone else to show it's not public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. As it's always been, the burden of proof is on the nominator to prove why the image should be deleted. You nominated the image to be deleted, so prove why it should. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Magog the Ogre on this last part. Uploader should deliver the proof that a file is free. I'm not an expert in {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} but it seems that all uploader has to do is to link to a document where the logo is used to proove that it is free. If Magog has to proove it is NOT free then he has to link to all documents ever made + proove that his list is complete! --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. As it's always been, the burden of proof is on the nominator to prove why the image should be deleted. You nominated the image to be deleted, so prove why it should. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- re Fred: It's right here: Commons:Project scope/Evidence: In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined. It really destroys any credibility and makes you look incompetent when you just make things up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's right there. I also know that the evidence for the image being public domain is right there above your comments. Now you show proof/evidence why it should be deleted. A very simple concept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK; can you show any case law or written law in South Africa that shows that a government-drawn illustration is considered an official document? The burden is on you, the one who claims that it is, to show it, not on me to show otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Per above: "The SANDF is administered through the Presidency and Ministry of Defence of South Africa. That means that the new symbols, flags, ensigns, and badges where adopted through administrative text. Whether the image was actually illustrated in the text or just described, is splitting hairs". You have to prove that there is some sort of case law or any other precedent that somehow, ensigns and badges and the like aren't included as part of administrative text even when they're in it. Notice the license isn't even that restrictive. It infact includes no just the texts, but "any official translations of such texts". That's an extremely broad inclusion, and means that any official pages regarding the symbols of the SANDF would also be PD. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the law. Can you prove that such an interpretation is common in South Africa? Writing something in bold doesn't count either. I want case law. Or written law. Proof. Anything other than it's public domain just because I say it is. Claiming that I haven't provided proof will get you nowhere because it's not my job to provide proof. Juts like all the other times when you thought yelling means you win the argument, facts are more important than statements, and the image is going to be deleted soon unless you provide such proof. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Point of order. Emboldening does not denote shouting, that's capitalising. Emboldening is sort of the equivalent of shining a torch on it. Carry on, as you were. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's not my interpretation. The license interprets the law, and it is explicitly clear. And I'm not yelling. Yelling uses all caps, I'm using bold as emphasis. Now, prove to us that there is some sort of case law or any other precedent that somehow, ensigns and badges and the like aren't included as part of administrative text even when they're in it, and maybe we'll entertain you. But continuing to cry out that we're not listening and have no proof won't get you anywhere. We have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the license is correct, and you are fighting an uphill battle. Fry1989 eh? 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1: Now here's some extra proof. Per cite_note-18, the SANDF emblems are registered with the Bureau of Heraldry, a government agency. That would be covered under "official texts of a... legal nature, or in official translations of". Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- 2: Meanwhile, this DoD PDF deals with the administration of the SANDF, which means these symbols fall under "official texts of a... administrative nature, or in official translations of". Fry1989 eh? 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- 3: And per [10] Military symbols and heraldry fall under the jurisdiction of the Defence Secretariant, which also means these symbols fall under "official texts of a... administrative nature, or in official translations of". Fry1989 eh? 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the law. Can you prove that such an interpretation is common in South Africa? Writing something in bold doesn't count either. I want case law. Or written law. Proof. Anything other than it's public domain just because I say it is. Claiming that I haven't provided proof will get you nowhere because it's not my job to provide proof. Juts like all the other times when you thought yelling means you win the argument, facts are more important than statements, and the image is going to be deleted soon unless you provide such proof. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Per above: "The SANDF is administered through the Presidency and Ministry of Defence of South Africa. That means that the new symbols, flags, ensigns, and badges where adopted through administrative text. Whether the image was actually illustrated in the text or just described, is splitting hairs". You have to prove that there is some sort of case law or any other precedent that somehow, ensigns and badges and the like aren't included as part of administrative text even when they're in it. Notice the license isn't even that restrictive. It infact includes no just the texts, but "any official translations of such texts". That's an extremely broad inclusion, and means that any official pages regarding the symbols of the SANDF would also be PD. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK; can you show any case law or written law in South Africa that shows that a government-drawn illustration is considered an official document? The burden is on you, the one who claims that it is, to show it, not on me to show otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's right there. I also know that the evidence for the image being public domain is right there above your comments. Now you show proof/evidence why it should be deleted. A very simple concept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Magog the Ogre on this last part. Uploader should deliver the proof that a file is free. I'm not an expert in {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} but it seems that all uploader has to do is to link to a document where the logo is used to proove that it is free. If Magog has to proove it is NOT free then he has to link to all documents ever made + proove that his list is complete! --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. As it's always been, the burden of proof is on the nominator to prove why the image should be deleted. You nominated the image to be deleted, so prove why it should. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show it's public domain, not for someone else to show it's not public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence to prove that {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} can be applied.Takabeg (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Takabeg has shown extreme ignorance about copyrights and how they work. For example, per [11], he thinks that the seal in this photo is copyrighted. He does not understand that the copyright listed on that website is for the photo itself, but it can not transfer to the seal superimposed over the photo, because that seal carries it's own copyrights. There are other examples of his ignorance (such as on his talk page, where he says that because I am not Turkish, I couldn't possibly be expected to understand Turkish copyright law), and therefore I highly suggest disregarding his comment all-together. There has been plenty of proof listed above to show that the license is correct and covers this emblem. Fry1989 eh? 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Define "no" Takabeg, as you seem to have a difference of opinion with the generally accepted version of the negative adverb. Could it be that you aren't South African so don't understand their rules? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said, it's time for a keep. We have one user, who thinks that "texts" actually means the letters on the paper, when it actually means the document itself, and another user who doesn't understand copyright at all, and sticks his fingers in his ears when people try to explain it to him. There has been plenty of proof listed above that this file is covered as "official texts of a... administrative or legal nature, or in any official translations of", three separate but equally applicable clauses of South African law, making this Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 11:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
