Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/27
 |
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}
_aus_7.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
-_Bahnübergang-_Richtung_Ulm_6.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_WGA24920.jpg){kind=link}
I'm an albanian and we don't represent this kind of stupidity, we stay loyal in our code of honor AceDouble (talk) 46.99.251.18 09:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Speedy keep. The nomination is total bollocks based on PoV and homophobia. The nominator needs his arse kicked (or reamed may be a more ironic punishment!) for this. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep As above. Your opinion on the subject is not a reason for deletion. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy keep. Homophobia is not acceptable on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
personnal AlexRider38CAS (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, user pic and uploader/author/depicted person request. Saibo (Δ) 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a capture of a TV broadcast. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio :bdk: 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Most likely not own work of uploader. Replaced in purpose by W:en:File:Talkmobile.png. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: company logo, would need to go under fair-use. Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It is an older picture of me that I do not wish to share anymore. Trannysandra (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC licence cannot be revoked. And i believe that in a way this image is educationally useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete per uploader request. No request has been made to revoke the CC license. This image is not used by any Wikimedia project and has not been categorized. No great harm in removing. -Pete F (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request, not in use, lots of other files in image catagories Captain-tucker (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an older picture of me that I do not wish to share anymore. Trannysandra (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC licence cannot be revoked. And i believe that in a way this image is educationally useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. No request has been made to revoke the CC license. This image is not used by any Wikimedia project and has not been categorized. No great harm in removing. -Pete F (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request, not in use, lots of other files in image catagories Captain-tucker (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an older picture of me that I do not wish to share anymore. Trannysandra (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC licence cannot be revoked. And i believe that in a way this image is educationally useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. No request has been made to revoke the CC license. This image is not used by any Wikimedia project. No great harm in removing. -Pete F (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request, not in use, lots of other files in image catagories Captain-tucker (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an older picture of me that I do not wish to share anymore. Trannysandra (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC licence cannot be revoked. And i believe that in a way this image is educationally useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. No request has been made to revoke the CC license. This image is not used by any Wikimedia project. No great harm in removing. -Pete F (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request, not in use, lots of other files in image catagories Captain-tucker (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I would no longer like my file available. Canvasgirl (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment I have no particular feelings as to whether this file should be kept or not however it does underline my point that the contribution seem to have been solely with the intention of promoting the business it seems this user is part of. --Herby talk thyme 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)- Keep - released under free license, in scope. --Claritas (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Free licence can't be revoked. In scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, see: http://www.pycawnings.com/awnings/replacement-fabric/replacement-fabric-for-window-awnings Captain-tucker (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 07:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio see: http://www.levantinecenter.org/board-directors/jordan-elgrably Captain-tucker (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Posible violación derechos autor (cartel de película) Shalbat (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Kyro Captain-tucker (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. myself488 talk 09:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal image not used on user page. Not needed. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Together with File:Suse logo.png. Claiming a vectorized gecko to be a "simple geometric shape" seems blatantly false to me. Thus, PD-textlogo can't be applied. Quibik (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete both, eligible for copyright. --Claritas (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have written them an email asking for more clarification. I could imagine that it is freely licensed but, of course, use is restricted by trademark laws. --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The trademark guidelines for openSUSE seem to apply as well.[1] yours Matt (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I’m new here, and certainly no expert, but wouldn’t the same logic require the deletion of all registered trademark logos, like IBM and Microsoft? ‣Andreas•⚖ 13:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: NC requirement at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines Captain-tucker (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate -Tõsine (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: You can use the {{Duplicate}} tag in the future to designate duplicate files. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Just spanish text and a possibly unfree cartoon image, out of scope Funfood ␌ 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope/Copyvio: http://br.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/redatoresbrasileiros/?v=1&t=directory&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=dir&slk=16 Captain-tucker (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of an inactive user. GeorgHH • talk 21:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image,unused. GeorgHH • talk 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete: based on the fact that this is a reupload of File:Ariel IV.jpg that had source problems, the Flickr image appears to be Flickrwashing as that Flickr user, who may or may not be Eric Boye, has only uploaded the one image which is itself suspicious and is the same as the one found at http://www.arielfyra.se/blogg/?p=100. The claim by the commons uploader on the image talk page that The issue with "missing evidence of permission" has been resolved is false because we have not received any verification of the permission necessary from the copyright holder. Because of the unconfirmed copyright status of the image it requires the verification be sent to our OTRS team with permission under a free licence. Also see this Administrator noticeboad post. Ww2censor (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copvio - http://www.arielfyra.se/bat_och_utrustning.html - If OTRS permission received image can be restored Captain-tucker (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagged for low quality (label over structure) for 194 days; replaced by File:Phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate.svg. Leyo 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Actually this image does not have "conformation shown", whereas the proposed replacement does. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this image is own work of uploader becuase of its low resolution without evidence of permission. Moreover, there are some results with Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: See http://www.larepublica.pe/13-03-2005/gastronomia-historia-en-el-fogon of 2005 Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality withouth any use or proove of truth Grunpfnul (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as COM:NPOV and mention in http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Balkanized_North_America as alternative history. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Opening hours of a group of libraries are not within Commons' scope. This, that and the other (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor-quality advertising-only photograph; the only contribution of a commercial-named account Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iceland, modern building. Claritas (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Leyo 09:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Russian political party non-free logo Sasha Krotov (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo of non-notable singer, photo description abused for spam. Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
prensa.argentina.ar is not covered by the casarosada cc-by-sa license. Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Is this really own work? More likely, it was taken from some unidentified game. Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Is my only personal page. It is part of a computer game, out of production that allows free-sceenshot provided do not appear trademarks in the images. raul (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Which game is this? Where is this screenshot statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The game is City Life, Montecristo. The Screenshot statement is in the contract of license. There, there is a part whick is about screenshot. The license of use is very long. I have read that many years ago. Otherwise I could make a request to Wikimedia to be only I the responsible of the image and I only so punishabled. I am highly favorable to this type of request. If there was a crime I would be solely responsible for the crime. --raul (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to that licence? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- No now there isn't; the videogame is old but I don't know where is the videogame's license. I remember that the game have a free-license for a screenshot but the image must not represent a trademark protected by Copyright.
- In fact, the images of the buildings are not intellectual property because these buildings are formed by a set of free images and don't go beyond the geometric drawing. The same thing applies to the streets and sidewalks of the game. Now, I know this, I don't want to spend your time and I'm sorry I did lose it. I have not even been able to give written proof of what I say. I repeat, to be you sure I can tell you that this particular screenshot of a game will never be reproduced by anyone else, even by game's creators themselves. You must know also that in the game you can build your buildings with a program that is not of Monte Cristo, but third parties and is not integrated with the game itself. Would be Intellectual property, reserved for the Montecristo, a game in which appear buildings created (that are free intellectual property) by more users? If there is creativity in the work (and I've got put) then it is more the work of another. Also for this reason the creativity is part of my slogan which is near the image in my user page. As the game is only their property is also true that the players who accept the license are part of it, but their works including saves and screen-shot, that does not harm or denigrate the image of the company in any way, are the intellectual property of player. Having said that I do not know how to help you. :-( --raul (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried searching for manuals or terms of this game using Google, but I couldn't find anything. en:City Life (video game) only contains images under fair use claims. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only screenshot of the video game's image has protected under a {{Non-free promotional}} and {{Non-free game screenshot}} license. At first this screenshot comes from a advertising campaign of Montecristo and above all was taken from a website which held the rights. Here http://www.gameswelt.de/galleries/screenshots/5355-City_Life_/204005.html#picture. Now my image is not part of promotional campaign and I took this picture. In my computer's folder I have a lot of them, but for my personal page I need only one. If this image in my possession or other you think might be of interest, in order to replace the protected images to makefreethe article, I'm willing to donate them. raul (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried searching for manuals or terms of this game using Google, but I couldn't find anything. en:City Life (video game) only contains images under fair use claims. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to that licence? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The game is City Life, Montecristo. The Screenshot statement is in the contract of license. There, there is a part whick is about screenshot. The license of use is very long. I have read that many years ago. Otherwise I could make a request to Wikimedia to be only I the responsible of the image and I only so punishabled. I am highly favorable to this type of request. If there was a crime I would be solely responsible for the crime. --raul (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Which game is this? Where is this screenshot statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence has been provided that this has an acceptable free license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not the good one Kevline (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I'm not sure what the nom means, but there is no clear reason to delete this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
unused (apparently nonnotable) company logo Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
orphaned photo of non-notable band (article deleted from de.wiki[2]) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
unused photo of non-notable band (article deleted from de.wiki[3]) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
unused photo of non-notable band (article deleted from de.wiki[4]) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
photo (screenshot?) of a video game character in a video game DS (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: logo of something not notable; not useable for encyclopedic use foreseeable. High Contrast (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The site which is in the watermark says "All rights reserved" Delete VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
_aus_7.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
_aus_7.11.2010.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Schleichwerbung, gehört nicht in ein Lexikon, eher in einen Reiseführer Roland Nonnenmacher (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
_aus_7.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Ehemaliger Bahnhof ist ein relevantes Gebäude, kann man sinnvoll im Artikel zur Bahnstrecke einbauen. Vergleiche bitte andere Beiträge des Fotografen! (Noch etwas - Commons ist kein Lexikon und hier darf gerne auch Material für einen freien Reiseführer gesammelt werden)
(Former railway station is a notable building!) -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) - Keep This picture shows the recent situation of the historical train station in the city of Scheer, Germany. Why should this be any commercial? --Manuel Heinemann (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why this picture should be insidious advertising; it's a normal photo without campaigning. Greetings --Jivee Blau (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
_aus_7.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
File:Zugstrecke_Ulm–Donaueschingen-_bei_86,2_km_(bei_Scheer)-_Bahnübergang-_Richtung_Ulm_6.11.2010.jpg
[edit]-_Bahn%C3%BCbergang-_Richtung_Ulm_6.11.2010.jpg){kind=link}
-_Bahn%C3%BCbergang-_Richtung_Ulm_6.11.2010.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unnötiger Speicherverbrauch über ein nichtsagendes Allerweltsfoto das stellvertretend für ganz Deutschland als Bahnstrecke herhalten könnte. Roland Nonnenmacher (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Na bestens, dann erfüllt es doch einen Bildungszweck und kann daher auch hier behalten werden! Sinnvolle Aufnahme von Eisenbahninfrastruktur.
Useful picture of a rail crossing "representative for whole Germany". -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC) - Keep ack --Manuel Heinemann (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why this picture should be insidious advertising; it's a normal photo without campaigning. Greetings --Jivee Blau (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Finde die Argumente für eine Löschung nicht stichhaltig. Mit km, Bahnübergang und Bebauung im Hintergrund ist die Stelle eindeutig identifizierbar, also nicht austauschbar für "ganz Deutschland". --Jwaller (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of the Free Art License at the source page. The image has "all rights reserved" in a caption. The license permission must come from the copyright owner directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Image authorship is claimed by Azad Hye; it appears on http://www.azad-hye.net/photos/viewalbumpicture.asp?al=50&pi=10 and http://www.azad-hye.net/news/viewnews.asp?newd=244 and has been there since 2006. Upload here is claimed as "own work"; we would need emailed permission from Azad Hye via COM:OTRS to confirm that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Image's authorship doesn't belong to Azad Hye. It belongs to the Armenian Embassy in Cairo. The image first appeared in 2006 here: http://www.armembegypt.com/main.php?page=about_embassy&path=EMB:AB_EMB. The current image's source and author was not submitted right during upload, But now it's corrected.
--Equivocus (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)equivocus
- Hm. As far as I can see, the date on that link is 2007 (which is as far back as the Internet Archive goes as well), and is a smaller image. The source you give in the file now is the same size, but has a watermark on it (the one here does not), and is dated recently (perhaps modified adding the watermark?). Secondly, if the copyright is owned by the embassy, we would need permission from them (as there is no indication of the stated copyright license at the source pages). If you work for the embassy, please have someone with authority over the copyright send an email using the instructions at COM:OTRS. One message could mention all the images they want to license which you have uploaded, so you can mention that one ticket number on every image page, or the ticket could authorize any license made by your user account, so it could be used in the future, or something like that. Accounts here are essentially anonymous though, so we can't just take someone's word for it, so we would require a communication from the embassy or elsewhere in the Armenian government. Either that, or have them change their website to indicate the images are available under the stated copyright licenses. It would be good to confirm File:Armenian-Egiptian parliamentary meeting.jpg as well; I found a small version of that on the embassy website but not the full-size version, and it would appear the "own work" claim on that is also incorrect (which in turn means there is no proof of the current license). It'd be great to have these images, but unfortunately the ease of taking these off the internet and uploading them means we usually do require the additional communication if the licenses are not displayed on the source website. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No permission Schwiki (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No permission Schwiki (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising; out of scope dave pape (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. pure SPAM and far out of project scope. --Elya (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising; out of scope. dave pape (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising; out of scope. dave pape (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Just spanish text and a doubtfully free Garfield image Funfood ␌ 19:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Promotional purpose, related enwp article already deleted Funfood ␌ 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement PDF for a french financial company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 20:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a notable person. unused image GeorgHH • talk 20:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. According to en:User talk:SVBryan abused in an article to insult or attack someone. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no assertion at en.wikipedia that this company allowed their logo to be under a free license. It is tagged as fair use over there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Violation of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Ukraine. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Though I don't know the life-dates of sculptor Volodymyr Tsisaryk, the statue looks rather new. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- http://tsisaryk.com/en/about/bio/ says 1978 - still living. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Now replaced with File:The Nations Choice Taft Sherman 1908 Hyman.jpg, a slightly smaller but visibly clearer version. Replacement was not derived/sourced from this file, so no attribution problems. It appears that this version was resized and recompressed repeatedly; I don't see any advantage to this older version other than that the gold embossing is a bit deeper here. Closeapple (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose, out of scope image Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted poster Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
I don't think this image is own work of uploader because of its low resolution without proper EXIF and moreover there are multiple hits on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused _____ (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Converted from speedy deletion. I think these images are likely screenshots from a movie because of its low resolution and no evidence of permission. Moreover, this user has some deleted images Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused JleonKiller (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Quality is too low, educational usage seems unrealistic. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted products Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted products Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality stretched pic, made from other, better version Grunpfnul (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is bad quality and low usage enough reason for deletion? Which policy states this?--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We don't generally keep unused low quality crops unless there is a good reason. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the picture of Gabriel Iglesias that I submitted & that was taken with my personal camera being considered for deletion? I don't know how this picture, Wóz Dobre.jpg ,of which appears to be an antiquated Polish truck, relates to my picture of Gabriel Iglesias...
Kept: Something went wrong here, but I'm not sure what. I'm keeping this so that it can be started from scratch if needed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The description for this picture has been defaced multiple times. What can be done about this?...
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
sorry - wrong file. See next. --ST ○ 17:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Dublette von 
ST ○ 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Simple spanish text, out of scope Funfood ␌ 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
dubious source and license Хинт (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source webpage is not available but it can be found in archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20100317183719/http://pridnestrovie.net/evgeny_shevchuk_bioprofile.html. The whole content of this site was licensed under Creative Commons. --Zserghei (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The wayback machine gives this explanation from the website: "PRIDNESTROVIE.NET is partially supported through an ICDISS-grant and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License." A remaining copyright problem with individual images is speculative and would be the mistake of pridnestrovie.net, but because the website explains its copyright status in uncertain terms I think this image can be kept. Hekerui (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The licence is available via web.archive.org and is correct russavia (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
will not be used for fundraising campaign anymore, portrayed person requests deletion Kai.nissen (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of unused (LQ) userpic. Saibo (Δ) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
no statement/explanation why the original photo is public domain. Saibo (Δ) 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the Bibliothèque nationale de France states so in the link provided. It clearly states it is in the public domain. If someone considers this information to be incorrect, please provide the evidence that proves the Bibliothèque nationale de France to be mistaken.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading the policy incorrectly, it is not them, but me (the uploader) who has to: [...]]uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain[...]. And I did. I pointed to the institution that says so. No less than Bibliothèque nationale de France! Besides: Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. All the Bibliothèque can say is that it belonged to a press agency, author unknown (when it is known, they state it, you can see the Sennecke pictures, for instance), and is now in the public domain. If you want to dig deeper and start investigating how the Bibliothèque does its evaluations, I see no problem, but the necessary conditions are met: the image is in PD by the authority of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, that has not been called in question by any evidence, the author is unknown and only the agency that owned the picture can be stated. Unless someone can come up with some hard facts disproving the above (and I still see none), I'd say the picture stays as it meets the required policies.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to push in a third party - well, that is a kind of license laundering. If "All the Bibliothèque can say" is what we know here it is just not enough. --Saibo (Δ) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying anything, stating what the source of the picture says. No laundering whatsoever, sir. What is not enough is to be claiming is not good enough. Says who? You? Stop twisting definitions. Indeed, there is no blinder man that the one who does not want to see. I am shortly requesting administrators to look into this as it is becoming ludicrous. Kindly go get something useful to do and stop bothering people.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- "stating what the source of the picture says" - yep, and exactly that is also LL. I am not bothering you - you can stay away from this DR. It is just about the image. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it is you can start nominating all third party pictures (you can start by the thousands of Bundesarchiv ones and the NARA ones if you have some spare time) in Commons. Then you can start doubting the ones claimed to be owned by the uploader (they could be lying, you see? Trust no one...). Do not trust those supposedly confirmed, they could be wrong or lying as well... I wonder why we have a PD template for the BNF... I would stay away if you had not added a note in my discussion page and nominated PD images that take a while to download, catalogue and upload for deletion. If you spent some time doing some positive work instead of negative one (hey, do you know you can upload pictures instead deleting them? big news!), I could spend some more time enlarging wikipedia instead of defending pictures from deletomaniacs... But do not take any notice of any one, keep asking questions instead, why bother to substantiate doubts, I undertand it is funnier when you have nothing better to do.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between Bundesarchiv and your two uploads here: Bundesarchiv claimed that they have the copyrights (which may be doubted too) and they can be bashed if that is not true but here we know nothing. We do not know if the library of France claims copyright but released the images into the PD or if they think they think the images are PD due to age. Btw: the template {{PD-GallicaScan}} which you have put on the file page is a enhanced {{PD-scan}} and source tag it just refers to the act of doing the reproduction and tells that this attracts no new copyright - but doesn't tell why the depicted work is PD. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the public domain because the BNF says it is in the public domain. A question of trust. So it is a question of finding someone to bash... Go get a life. The BNF says the picture is in PD, end of the story as far as I am concerned. I am quitting this. If you happen to go ahead and delete this image against everbody's opinion to the contrary and no prove of misuse I intend to put it back in place and report it as vandalism. Good bye for good.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- EOD also here after your PA over there and here. And if you would be more aware of what DRs are you would know that I will not delete this image by myself. --Saibo (Δ) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the public domain because the BNF says it is in the public domain. A question of trust. So it is a question of finding someone to bash... Go get a life. The BNF says the picture is in PD, end of the story as far as I am concerned. I am quitting this. If you happen to go ahead and delete this image against everbody's opinion to the contrary and no prove of misuse I intend to put it back in place and report it as vandalism. Good bye for good.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between Bundesarchiv and your two uploads here: Bundesarchiv claimed that they have the copyrights (which may be doubted too) and they can be bashed if that is not true but here we know nothing. We do not know if the library of France claims copyright but released the images into the PD or if they think they think the images are PD due to age. Btw: the template {{PD-GallicaScan}} which you have put on the file page is a enhanced {{PD-scan}} and source tag it just refers to the act of doing the reproduction and tells that this attracts no new copyright - but doesn't tell why the depicted work is PD. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it is you can start nominating all third party pictures (you can start by the thousands of Bundesarchiv ones and the NARA ones if you have some spare time) in Commons. Then you can start doubting the ones claimed to be owned by the uploader (they could be lying, you see? Trust no one...). Do not trust those supposedly confirmed, they could be wrong or lying as well... I wonder why we have a PD template for the BNF... I would stay away if you had not added a note in my discussion page and nominated PD images that take a while to download, catalogue and upload for deletion. If you spent some time doing some positive work instead of negative one (hey, do you know you can upload pictures instead deleting them? big news!), I could spend some more time enlarging wikipedia instead of defending pictures from deletomaniacs... But do not take any notice of any one, keep asking questions instead, why bother to substantiate doubts, I undertand it is funnier when you have nothing better to do.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- "stating what the source of the picture says" - yep, and exactly that is also LL. I am not bothering you - you can stay away from this DR. It is just about the image. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying anything, stating what the source of the picture says. No laundering whatsoever, sir. What is not enough is to be claiming is not good enough. Says who? You? Stop twisting definitions. Indeed, there is no blinder man that the one who does not want to see. I am shortly requesting administrators to look into this as it is becoming ludicrous. Kindly go get something useful to do and stop bothering people.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to push in a third party - well, that is a kind of license laundering. If "All the Bibliothèque can say" is what we know here it is just not enough. --Saibo (Δ) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading the policy incorrectly, it is not them, but me (the uploader) who has to: [...]]uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain[...]. And I did. I pointed to the institution that says so. No less than Bibliothèque nationale de France! Besides: Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. All the Bibliothèque can say is that it belonged to a press agency, author unknown (when it is known, they state it, you can see the Sennecke pictures, for instance), and is now in the public domain. If you want to dig deeper and start investigating how the Bibliothèque does its evaluations, I see no problem, but the necessary conditions are met: the image is in PD by the authority of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, that has not been called in question by any evidence, the author is unknown and only the agency that owned the picture can be stated. Unless someone can come up with some hard facts disproving the above (and I still see none), I'd say the picture stays as it meets the required policies.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from the press agency Meurisse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the physical ownership of an photo does not establish both, copyright ownership and clairvoyance abilities. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- BNF has the original glass negative and presumably the all the existing records of the press agency, and they are professional archivists, documentation is their job. Yet you prefer to request deletion of this file, and to leave Mattbuck's uploads alone, where there is just some Toser who had a print in a shoebox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did the professional archivists find out? Why is it PD? What is the source of their findings? --Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- BNF has the original glass negative and presumably the all the existing records of the press agency, and they are professional archivists, documentation is their job. Yet you prefer to request deletion of this file, and to leave Mattbuck's uploads alone, where there is just some Toser who had a print in a shoebox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the physical ownership of an photo does not establish both, copyright ownership and clairvoyance abilities. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from the press agency Meurisse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Evidence of the fact that it's PD was provided. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Saibo having a brain fart is not a reason to delete. Evidence of PD provided, there is even a template to suggest that the Bibliothèque's word is acceptable here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Argument of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} by a national library is convincing. MBisanz talk 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
no statement/explanation why the original photo is public domain. Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the Bibliothèque nationale de France states so in the link provided. It clearly states it is in the public domain. If someone considers this information to be incorrect, please provide the evidence that proves the Bibliothèque nationale de France to be mistaken.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are so interested, I would suggest you ask them, do not simply nominate the picture for deletion with no prove of their claim being wrong. I trust their word. I see no evidence from any one proving the opposite. Which prove does any one have the picture is not in the public domain? Evidence anyone?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Read again Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. We do not want non-free files here and you cannot tell why this is PD - so we need to assume the opposite. --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who says is non free? Bibliothèque nationale de France says it is. And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so. If for some obscure reason that is not enough for you, again, go and ask them but stop implying it is not good enough. If you have prove showing they are wrong, kindly show it now and let us get over with. Otherwise, please try to avoid wasting people's time. I have better things to do in wikipedia and outside than trying to defend the validity of a file that is backed up by a national library from empty accusations... Really...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- "And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so." - Will go to my collection of funniest citations ever. Yes, we can stop discussion if you want and if you have no reason why it is PD. --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, or are you saying that the BNF owns the copyright and releases the images into the public domain? The current copyright tag on the file page doesn't say this. --Saibo (Δ) 20:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am saying the Bibliothèque nationale de France states the picture is in the public domain. And I have no reason to doubt them. For the last time, if you do (and I see no more than empty grumbling so far and no prove to suspect them), GO ASK THEM. If not, please stop bothering and waisting people's time. We all have better things to do, thank you very much.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- And, again, asking them is your job. --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, I have a job of my own, thank you very much. I contribute as a volunteer with a sizeable part of my spare time to ENLARGE (look it up in a dictionary I know it sounds a rather unfamiliar word to you) wikipedia while others play Mr. Inquisitor in his high chair. I trust an authority such as the BNF. If you don't it is up to you confirm your suspicions, no matter how far fetched.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personal attack is noted. EOD. --Saibo (Δ) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, I have a job of my own, thank you very much. I contribute as a volunteer with a sizeable part of my spare time to ENLARGE (look it up in a dictionary I know it sounds a rather unfamiliar word to you) wikipedia while others play Mr. Inquisitor in his high chair. I trust an authority such as the BNF. If you don't it is up to you confirm your suspicions, no matter how far fetched.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- And, again, asking them is your job. --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am saying the Bibliothèque nationale de France states the picture is in the public domain. And I have no reason to doubt them. For the last time, if you do (and I see no more than empty grumbling so far and no prove to suspect them), GO ASK THEM. If not, please stop bothering and waisting people's time. We all have better things to do, thank you very much.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who says is non free? Bibliothèque nationale de France says it is. And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so. If for some obscure reason that is not enough for you, again, go and ask them but stop implying it is not good enough. If you have prove showing they are wrong, kindly show it now and let us get over with. Otherwise, please try to avoid wasting people's time. I have better things to do in wikipedia and outside than trying to defend the validity of a file that is backed up by a national library from empty accusations... Really...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Read again Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. We do not want non-free files here and you cannot tell why this is PD - so we need to assume the opposite. --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are so interested, I would suggest you ask them, do not simply nominate the picture for deletion with no prove of their claim being wrong. I trust their word. I see no evidence from any one proving the opposite. Which prove does any one have the picture is not in the public domain? Evidence anyone?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from Mondial Photo-Presse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did they do to find the author? Was the photographer an employee of Mondial PP? --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You keep on second-guessing the BNF but you are too afraid to nominate Mattbuck's uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did they do to find the author? Was the photographer an employee of Mondial PP? --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from Mondial Photo-Presse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per my other vote. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen some bloody stupid questions asked at DR before, but the desperation of some of Saibo's is ridiculous. The Bibliothèque's word is good enough for me, though why it isn't for Saibo I have no idea. Is Dec 27th National Brain Fart day or something? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Argument of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} by a national library is convincing. MBisanz talk 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Józef Piłsudski is listed as the author, which means this left copyright in life+70 nations in 2005, which means it was restored to copyright by the URAA and thus gets 95 years of protection from publication; if that was 1932, it'll be out of copyright in 2028. Prosfilaes (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- According to the BNF and I if I am not missing any extra piece of data from their web, Piłsudski is not shown as the author but as the subject of the picture. In this picture's record I read Auteur : Agence de presse Mondial Photo-Presse. Agence photographique, not Piłsudski (who appears in the picture anyhow making it rather difficult to be the author of the picture). The author is unknown from the BNF's description.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- My confusion; then it left copyright in nations with 70 year terms for anonymous authors in 2003. Same ultimate result; it's still in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Canada has 75 years from creation for anonymous works. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Not NASA, image from http://www.buran.ru/htm/compar2.htm Sasha Krotov (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell for such a low-resolution image whether it is a reduced version of the image from www.buran.ru or an independent image from NASA (BTW, the NASA link is broken). Anyway, www.buran.ru does contain better versions of this picture, but the bottom of the main page says "commercial use requires written permission; for non-commercial use, a link to the web-site is required" — are such materials allowed here, and if yes, which license must be given? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- the site must be explicitly authorized to use the file for commercial purposes and the permission to change. Ideally, there should be a clear link to Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 or compatible licence--Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, very likely a Russian work, and no evidence of release under a free license on Buran.ru. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Troggfrog (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Clancampbellwhisky (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
_-_WGA24920.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_WGA24920.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Paolo Veronese - Ceiling paintings - WGA24917.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Paolo Veronese - Ceiling decoration (detail) - WGA24918.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Paolo Veronese - Ceiling decoration (detail) - WGA24919.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Paolo Veronese - Ceiling decoration (detail) - WGA24921.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Paolo Veronese - Ceiling decoration (detail) - WGA24927.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24919.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24921.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA24927.jpg){kind=link}
PD-Art does not apply, and cropping is not a solution. This is also the case with many other photos in Category:Images with non-free frames. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
_-_WGA24920.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - The Court case that is applicable relies on this philosophical point:
- "It is obvious that although a man may get a copyright by taking a photograph of some well-known object like Westminster Abbey, he does not get a monopoly in representing Westminister Abbey as such, any more than an artist would who painted or drew that building. What, then, is the scope of photographic copyright? As always with artistic works, this depends on what makes his photograph original. Under the 1988 Act the author is the person who made the original contribution and it will be evident that this person need not be he who pressed the trigger, who might be a mere assistant. Originality presupposes the exercise of substantial independent skill, labour, judgment and so forth. For this reason it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all;"
- in essence, threshold of originality means that this work, a faithful reproduction of the PD art and PD frames that takes a direct straight on shot cannot be copyrighted. Notice that Westminster Abbey is not a 2D work of art. To copyright this would state that no others would have the legal ability to copyright a faithful, exact copy of this image. That would not stand up in any court and would go against Commons consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Westminster Abbey is not a 2D work of art, no. But the Court never said that you can copy someone else's picture of Westminster Abbey. In theory, one can create an independent copyrightable work that is the exact same as a previous copyrightable work. In practice, no one will exactly recreate the lighting conditions and angle of this photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, Web Gallery of Art claims no copyright over images but only the database the images are drawn up from. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Photography of 3D object.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Jarekt (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
_-_WGA24920.jpg){kind=link}
Orphan Id4abel (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Also, low quality. Abel (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphan, Low Quality Abel (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Well it's an svg, so technically, it scales.[5] Maybe the granularity is part of the commentary? I'd probably say delete, but I'm too baffled to figure out what it's supposed to be representing. I guess that baby Parthenons grow into bigger, more pixalated Parthenons? --Quintucket (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Small government > Big governmentAbel (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I figured it was something like that, given that minarchism is a flavor of libertarianism. I like my explanation better, though. --Quintucket (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, your explanation is better. Abel (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I figured it was something like that, given that minarchism is a flavor of libertarianism. I like my explanation better, though. --Quintucket (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Small government > Big governmentAbel (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Minarchism.svg/2000px-Minarchism.svg.png){kind=link}
DeleteOrphan, Low QualityAbel (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While i note that minarchism is considered libertarianism probably only in the USA. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- CommentAs soon as I come up with something better, I'll upload it. Abel (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
DeleteDespite being theoretically scalable, it's a converted bitmap, which means it has the same effect as scaling a bitmap. Like Abel said, it's a low-quality orphan. It's not used, and I don't see how it would be used. --Quintucket (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment After creating the file, I added it to an article but it was deleted so there is really no purpose for this file beyond it just taking up space.
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carl jonny (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works. These are works by sv:Johnny Mattsson, who died in 1970. The photograph of the artist has no valid source.
- File:JM skulpturer.JPG
- File:JM kåsor ölgåsar.JPG
- File:JM röhska 1954.JPG
- File:JM offentliga arbeten.JPG - I just realized that this image goes under Swedish freedom of panorama, since the statues seem to be permanently placed outside. They should still be split into three separate images though. /grillo (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Ölgåsh32cm.JPG
- File:Johnnymattsson.JPG
grillo (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The issue here is not just those of the sculptures that are not outdoors, but the images themselves. They look like scans from a book or postcard, not Own Work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
looks like some wegrab 80.187.97.68 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
o4892655+25658558087,8000 83.109.187.7 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
748368581982535742414245555254254544554546454587585586924558561521112110121105gkhjhjgun jb 83.109.187.7 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, please learn to type. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Obvious vandalism. Speedily kept. Trijnstel (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.198.234 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Portrait of a notable person, the background is just de minimis. (Beiwerk auf deutsch.) -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Photo of a notable person, stadium behind is still uncompleted and does not contain the roof which is the most notable in the stadium's architecture — NickK (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- 194.48.128.75 09:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This image appears to belong to a photographer named Mike Sheehan, not the Flickr user. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
deleted clear licence laundry on this Flickr account. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Aparece en http://www.flickr.com/photos/espacioluke/4855924191/in/photostream/ con copyright Shalbat (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- idem File:Kepa_Murua.jpg firstly published here [6].--PierreSelim (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Pictures firstly published under non commercial licence on Flickr by someonelse. No OTRS --PierreSelim (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is not the uploader's own work 79.237.171.3 15:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I found the same image on this website. The problem is whether {{PD-Polish}} can be applied or not. Takabeg (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is my picture of Gabriel Iglesias, File:Gabriel_Iglesias_01.jpg, being drawn into this discussion of deleting this picture of an antiquated Polish truck???... ValamirCleaver (talk) 19:09, 07 January 2012 (UTC-7)
Deleted: No facts brought High Contrast (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Not clear why this image is public domain. The author died in 1962 so it is only 49 years, not 70 as required for this copyright tag (PD-old). Saibo (Δ) 04:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the photographer was Emil Biber († 1962) the image is not free. The URL is not working; the webarchive does not state the photographer. See also Emil Bieber and Category:Photographs by E. Bieber. This one – and others as well – are used in many wikis… Alfie↑↓© 04:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It’s a mess. The current URL states the source as ‘Current History of the War. v.II (April 1915 - September 1915). New York: New York Times Company.’ Unfortunately none of the three numbers of volume 2 contain the image (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3).
P.S.: Would be nice if an Admin could fix showing this section in duplicate at COM:DR.;-) Alfie↑↓© 15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)- My mistake – there are six numbers in vol.2, not three. Found the image in No. 5: image in HTML (329 × 500 px), image with caption (3336 × 5255 px) – which is
- H. I. M. FRANCIS JOSEPH I.
Latest Portrait of the Venerable Sovereign of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
(Photo from Bain.)
- H. I. M. FRANCIS JOSEPH I.
- No mentioning of Emil Bieber. “Bain.” likely is the abbreviation for George Grantham Bain’s “Bain News Service” (see collection at the Library of Congress). Couldn’t find the image, neither at the LoC nor at Flickr. Alfie↑↓© 13:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe somebody has the nerves to search the 3010 files in Category:PD-Bain for a duplicate. Alfie↑↓© 15:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have searched the bain images with fulltext search - this image doesn't seem to be included (neither "joseph" nor "franz".
- I suggest everybody who hasn't done it yet to view the diffs in the file page's history. The first 5 months after upload the file didn't had a license template at all, then a simple "PD" was added. Only a month ago the current author was added - I have asked the user now for the source of this statement. --Saibo (Δ) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please see here. --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you! That looks quite trustworthy. --Saibo (Δ) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that the photo was probably widely available by 1910. As you can see on the link, it was an autographed copy of it, probably the kind that was sell everywhere. Thus, it could probably qualify for the pre-1923 tag. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it can't qualify for that. This is the picture of an Austrian emperor taken by a German photographer. pd-1923 is for US photography only. -- Cecil (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that the photo was probably widely available by 1910. As you can see on the link, it was an autographed copy of it, probably the kind that was sell everywhere. Thus, it could probably qualify for the pre-1923 tag. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you! That looks quite trustworthy. --Saibo (Δ) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please see here. --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake – there are six numbers in vol.2, not three. Found the image in No. 5: image in HTML (329 × 500 px), image with caption (3336 × 5255 px) – which is
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded to en.wiki when I had no understanding of copyright law, erroneously transferred to Commons, with no proof of copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- CommentSorry, i don't understand what makes it copyrighted still. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's no evidence it is out of copyright. Images aren't hosted here because we think they are, we can only use them if we can prove they're out of copyright. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it's during the WW1, then surely it's before 1923. That's proof enough for me. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It has to be published before 1923, not simply taken. There's no proof the photo was published before the cutoff. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- this man only thinks negative. he would accept a picture from jesus crucifixion if you not give the fotographers name. look in this file and see he is just deleting. should be suspended for "delete only member"--Gonzosft (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright law is important to follow. If we violate copyrights, we place the Wikimedia Foundation at legal risk. If you want to pay out of your own pocket when someone sues Wikimedia for a copyright violation, fine by me. If not, I suggest you let those of us who have even a modicum of understanding of copyright law handle these things. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please discuss the file not the users. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- this man only thinks negative. he would accept a picture from jesus crucifixion if you not give the fotographers name. look in this file and see he is just deleting. should be suspended for "delete only member"--Gonzosft (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- It has to be published before 1923, not simply taken. There's no proof the photo was published before the cutoff. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it's during the WW1, then surely it's before 1923. That's proof enough for me. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's no evidence it is out of copyright. Images aren't hosted here because we think they are, we can only use them if we can prove they're out of copyright. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Germany}}: It is a photographic work and 50 years have passed since the year of its creation is applied. If need , {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be added. Takabeg (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the photo is PD in the US. Without a source and publication date, we can't determine what the status in the US is - the URAA might not even be relevant in this case. The point remains that we can't keep the photo without a reliable source and date of publication. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment erm, @pd-germany: that's nonsense, but that's because the template is completely wrong. "It is a photographic work and 50 years have passed since the year of its creation" is a complete misinterpretation/mistranslation of the actual provisions. actually, it is wrong on two ends. first, the german term is "lichtbild" which by no means is equal in meaning to "photographic work". photographic works are granted protection for 70 years p.m.a. if they meet the criteria in § 2 urhg just like any other works. the protection of "lichtbilder" derived from § 72 urhg is a sui generis protection right for all photographs or all photographs that do not meet the general criteria for protection as works as outlined in § 2 urhg. here, it is by no means clear whether the image in question is protected through § 2 or not. except in cases like photo booths or satellite imagery that is very hard to tell. so please don't rely on such a classification and assume 70 years p.m.a. (just as it's done on dewiki). second, even if it were a "lichtbild", the fact that "50 years have passed since the year of its creation" is not a sufficient condition for being in the public domain as everyone can easily check herself in § 72 (3) urhg.
anyway, what exactly does the image have to do with german law? was it taken in germany? what does it have to do with u.s. law? —Pill (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)- It's a photo of a German cruiser, so it was more than likely published in Germany, hence German law. All images hosted on Commons must be PD in the country of origin (in this case probably Germany), and the US, since the Wikimedia servers are located in the US. Without a source, we cannot determine that this photo meets the criteria of either countries' laws. Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The court considered the rule of the shorter term inapplicable because of the bilateral copyright treaty between Germany and the United States, which had become effective on January 15, 1892 and which was still in effect. That treaty did not contain a rule of the shorter term, but just stated that works of either country were copyrighted in the other country by the other country's laws. (aufrecht.de / Urteile / Urheberrecht / Schutzfristen ausländischer Werke, - OLG Frankfurt/Main, Urteil vom 7. Oktober 2003, AZ: 11 U 22/00). Takabeg (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- @ User:Pill. If so, could you start discussion about this issue on Template talk:PD-Germany ? Takabeg (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is nonsense, it's copyright free in Germany and the US, it's from WWI and has no known author. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. No source that this is the Pillau, no source of the identity of the photographer, where the photo was taken, first published or which country's laws apply. 08:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the requirements of PD-TR is fullfilled. The author is not unknown, just User:Takabeg doesn't know who took that photo but doesn't count. Bring some reliable evidence that it is really not known who took this photo 79.237.171.3 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author ? As long as I know, apart from the Turkish official, Margaret Bourke-White had chances to take such photographs. But I couldn't find this photograph among her works. This image was taken before 1941 and there is no credit of photographer. In this case, {{PD-TR}} can be applied. Maybe you confuse {{PD-TR}} with {{PD-TR-Gov}}. Unfortunately, according to the Turkish copyright law, the concept of PD-TR-Gov is not in existence. Takabeg (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. There is no source that verify that this photo was taken before 1941 or that it has anything to do with Turkey, nor has the uploader explained which steps *he has taken to find the identity of the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
fichier personnel - plus d'intérêt à apparaitre ici GwenofGwened (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No explicit statement of permission (only link is to file, and nothing at mod.uk copyright page), as required for Ministry of Defence works by the Open Government License (see discussion at User talk:Tom Morris). This presumably is considered to be under the license because "core" materials by the Ministry are said on the website to be licensed under a license now superseded by the OGL, but not clear this or any photograph is "core"—e.g., important to understanding law or government policy. —innotata 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, good point, I need to get MOD to update their site; will sling them a note when I get back to work after the New Year break.
- For reference: MOD don't have a letter of delegation from The National Archives, so there's no choice about them being "core" Crown Copyright, per Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005, and so covered by the Open Government Licence for works their Crown Agents create and publish. In contrast, the Met Office do, but as of two months ago they're now part of BIS, and the Hydrographic Office similarly, but their content will be elsewhere.
- (In case it's not clear: I'm right[1], the site's wrong, we can certainly use the image under OGL, and my apologies o/b/o HMG ;-).)
- James F. (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The OGL says "information that is licensed by Crown bodies under a delegation of authority from the Controller, unless otherwise specified" is not under the Controller's offer, and is not under the OGL unless specified. "Delegation of authority" links to [7], which lists the MoD. —innotata 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ But then I would say that, wouldn't I? :-)
Deleted: James has had ample time to ask MOD to clarify their site and they have not done so. Neither the main copyright page nor the page with the image contains any permission statement. Undeletion is possible if the statement of permission is later obtained. Alternatively presenting some kind of documented evidence that all MOD works are "core" Crown Copyright would suffice. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
