Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
je načten nový aktuální soubor Gabriella50 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Mistaken deletion request; file properly replaced. Mormegil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's File:Chimpanzee mom and baby.jpg, photoshopped to show the baby chimp lighting a cigarette. This obviously isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose", and is outside commons scope. McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete, out of COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as derivative of http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/chimpanzee-enemies Photo:Stevehdc Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Invalid reason for DR, deleted for being a copyvio, though Darwin Ahoy! 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep. No reason given to delete. Fry1989 eh? 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 01:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
delete 124.123.90.179 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment and the reason is...? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- delete Wiki01 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - see http://www.whensallymetsally.co.uk/news/celebrity/naya-rivera-says-her-lesbian-character-in-glee-has-helped-gay-fa (crop of larger picture) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lara Stone NYC.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This picture was taken by me. http://www.jiyangchen.com It was taken by them from wikipedia and put on their website without credit, and same with the Lara Stone picture. Jiyangc (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- In case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lara Stone NYC.jpg "copied" picture was with higher resolution. Also here -> it is "crop of larger picture" so it is impossible that it was stolen from commons Bulwersator (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- File uploaded here in June 2011; that source is October 2011. The image does exist on http://jiyangchen.com/photography/people/ though the server date there is in August, so even that seems to be after the upload here. There is an early August source here which does attribute the image correctly. Certainly seems like the real photographer uploaded here. The source you give is not evidence of copying -- rather the other way; they probably took it from here (note the degraded quality of the image on that site -- the image there is simply a scaled-up and cropped version of the one here; I scaled up this version to compare and they are pretty much identical). So, Keep. The Lara Stone photo is available on http://blog.jiyangchen.com which was the likely source for the other website (which predated the upload here by about a day, but I'm not seeing any real reason to doubt this user's uploads). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then it may be a good idea to check Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lara Stone NYC.jpg - maybe it was also erroneous nomination Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per the UDELR discussion. Some of this photographer's images have been uploaded here before his own blog, so his identity is sufficiently established. --99of9 (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept - per above & OTRS Bulwersator (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if it is de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's write it here for all the photos you are nominating. I have no problem if you want to delete it, including the other one that originally you have requested for speedy deletion (on which I disagreed, the title was "cité internationale" but it was just a photo of the panorma of the whole town, it wasn't a "speedy deletion" procedure, it is good that you changed it). Notice than when I uploaded these pictures there were (and still are) on commons other photos where the building(s) of the cité occupied more the 50% of the image at its centre, and was the only things you could see, so I would have prefered to see you nominate them as first, but I expect you to do it in the following hours.
My pictures are just pictures of panorama: there is a big building that I have to include in them when a take a picture from north to south on that hill of Caluire-et-Cuire. When I uploaded them I made a decision to classify them also in the "Cité Internationale" category because these are exactely the type of picture that people in countries where copyright of "artworks" in public places is a problem can use. For the same reason I put that specific title, even if they weren't fully centered on the building of the C.I. Some of the other picture yo have nominated are pictures of parts of the buildings, which as far as i know are also acceptable.
Besides that, as far as i know, people can use the picture where these types of copyright problems don't exist. I think that as long as a clear warning is put that states to check laws of the different countries, it is ok..; if I use the picture on a wikipedia hosted in a country where the law is ambigous is a problem, but the most logical thing is to delete it from there if used, not from here. For example, there are photographs on commons of which the author has died more than 70 years ago but less than 99, and we don't delete them; we just put a warning that states to pay attention to the few countries where the use could be a problem. It is the same thing here, in my opinion. So even the pictures of other authors where you see only the buildings of the C.I. should remain.
Just my opinion, feel free to do what you want, but if you erase my photos, than I expect you to erases them all, just that.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis, city panorama. --P199 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are two buildings many enough to make each of them insignificant? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if the image is de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if the image is de minimis. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis, city panorama. --P199 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware the policy is that generous. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the bridge PD-old? Is Cité International de minimis in this image? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The bridge is not PD-old and the Cité International at the photo is only one detail. An other way I d'ont undertand yours questions.Basilio (talk)
- If the bridge is copyrighted then the image is a copyvio as there is no freedom of panorama in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok! You are right, but what is happening, for example, with Category:Bridges over the Rhône River in Lyon, or Category:Viaduc SNCF (Lyon). Sorry. Basilio (talk)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Romania. Threshold of originality? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
De Minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France. Not de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France: Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Tram. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France. PD-old? De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a strange request to me. Please see the (talk) page where others are questioning more such requests. with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The building uccupies such a large and central part of the image that I doubt it is de minimis. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAC de Lyon.JPG. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Source and author of "german Wikipedia" aren't sufficient. GrapedApe (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - see de:Datei:Farsala Siegel.png, photo taken from a Greek web site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential information Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Too complex for PD-text GrapedApe (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Knovel is a US company. This logo is not complex enough to claim copyright in US. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Simpler than some of the examples at COM:TOO#United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Simple enough for PD-textlogo Lymantria (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is RuPaul or authorized by RuPaul to make the release. GrapedApe (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with whether or not the file can be on Commons. It depends on whether or not the file is copyrighted. That said, it does look complicated enough to be copyrighted, and therefore I'd have to vote delete. Fry1989 eh? 00:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- ...and because it's copyrightable and not released by RuPau, Inc., then it can't be on Commons.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Too complex for PD_ineligible GrapedApe (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete too complex. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Lymantria (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality (low resolution, badJPG), replaced by File:1,2-Didehydrobenzol.svg. Leyo 13:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and has been replaced by the superior equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 14:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry: alkynes are linear. Leyo 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused and contains misleading chemical representations. Ed (Edgar181) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry of the azo group; orphaned. Leyo 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Incorrect reasoning. There is nothing wrong with geometry as there is no geometry information in it, because no geometry information can be given. So, picture is perfectly valid, as are several other ones that Leyo nominated today. Annabel (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if bonds are in fact linear, they are actually drawn linearly. Everything else is misleading and a bad habit from a teaching point of view. --Leyo 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true. Maybe different instituations or universities teach it in different ways, true ... though this does not mean it is forbidden or wrong to draw some bonds in a "linear way". It is only another projection of the true three dimensional geometry. Annabel (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not about what is forbidden or not. Please stop your silliness. --Leyo 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true. Maybe different instituations or universities teach it in different ways, true ... though this does not mean it is forbidden or wrong to draw some bonds in a "linear way". It is only another projection of the true three dimensional geometry. Annabel (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if bonds are in fact linear, they are actually drawn linearly. Everything else is misleading and a bad habit from a teaching point of view. --Leyo 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This poor quality structure is misleading, does have an chemically incorrect N=N-bond; hence this picture is not educational, and subject to deletion.
- And personally I think it is a little strange if someone's admitting not to have any clue of chemistry but on the other hand does not listen to a chemist. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we stop these personal attacks, please? Thank you both. Annabel (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let's just refer to the detailled reasoning given by DMacks (bottom). --Leyo 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry of the azo groups; poor quality, orphaned. Leyo 13:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Incorrect reasoning. There is nothing wrong with geometry as there is no geometry information in it, because no geometry information can be given. There is however a better quality alternative: Benzopurpurine 4B.svg Annabel (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The poor quality makes it unusable anyway. Since there is a much better alternative (File:Congo-red-2D-skeletal.png), there is no reason for keeping it anyway. The geometry issue is only an additional reason for deletion. BTW: The File:Benzopurpurine 4B.svg you mentioned does not show the same substance. --Leyo 23:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK. We have a totally different meaning about geometry, as is the case for the other nominated pictures. Agree on the image quality. Annabel (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- My excuses about the svg I named as alternative, it is indeed an other compound (I overlooked the methyl group on the central aromatic rings). Annabel (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK. We have a totally different meaning about geometry, as is the case for the other nominated pictures. Agree on the image quality. Annabel (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- The poor quality makes it unusable anyway. Since there is a much better alternative (File:Congo-red-2D-skeletal.png), there is no reason for keeping it anyway. The geometry issue is only an additional reason for deletion. BTW: The File:Benzopurpurine 4B.svg you mentioned does not show the same substance. --Leyo 23:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This poor quality structure is misleading, does have an chemically incorrect N=N-bond; hence this picture is not educational, and subject to deletion.
- And personally I think it is a little strange if someone's admitting not to have any clue of chemistry but on the other hand does not listen to a chemist. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry of the azo group; orphaned, low quality. Leyo 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep A non-chemist writes Do these "rectilinear" versions of the molecular structure still have value? Topologically they're still correct and they're simpler, even if they don't indicate the geometry. Is this still worthwhile to keep them, within the broad scope of Commons? Deletion at Commons should need a really good reason, not merely valid simplification or minor duplication. Certainly "being orphaned" is no reason at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are several correct alternatives in the same category, e.g. File:AIBN Structural Formulae.png. --Leyo 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's also more complex and less clear. It is not our role to decide which is most useful, per usage. There is no Commons policy that supports deletion just because alternatives exist.
- If you're also planning to stalk my uploads and start retaliatory tagging for deletion just for disagreeing with you, then I suggest Category:Photographs by Andy Dingley might be handy for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Take File:AIBN-2D-skeletal.png or File:AIBN-3D-vdW.png if you prefer.
- Copyfraud is a serious problem, also on Commons. I fight it whenever I spot a case. --Leyo 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep I totally oppose to the way chemical structures are named wrong. There is nothing wrong with this structure. There is as much geometric information in this picture as the alternatives given by Leyo, namely none. If someone else has a different style of making 2D-structures, that does not matter, all are equally correct as long as the numebr of endpoints and the number of nodes of the backbone is correct. This is the way chemists write there chemical structures. Full stop. Annabel (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your statement about endpoints and nodes is incorrect: If e.g. C–C≡N is drawn in an angulate way, this is incorrect.
- Why can't you just admit that the structural formula you drew back in 2005 is of low quality and misleading? My first uploads of chemical structures were in the same year and they were crappy. If you were even involved in teaching, you would know that such representations of chemical structures may confuse students. --Leyo 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can see some argument that File:AIBN.png isn't as good as File:AIBN.jpg, as it doesn't represent the CN bond. However I see no reason why File:AIBN.jpg should be considered as incorrect, rather than merely simplified. They contain less information, but they do not convey incorrect information. In topological terms, they're equivalent. Again, I'm not a chemist, but there does seem to be some practice of using such simplified images. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- In chemical structure formula why should it be wrong to substitute part of the chemical formula with a written form? It's just personal, dependent on the writer and is it is exactly similar to the colour a person likes the most: if you like another colour the most, is the first person wrong? Annabel (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- By the way: I do not like substituting pictures on an other wiki, just to be sure that a picture is orphaned. Maybe personal, though the given alternative by Leyo File:AIBN Structural Formulae.png is ugly in my point of view. Annabel (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You do not like it, but you did it: [1], [2]! If you consider the whole article, including the reaction scheme in the section Ontleding, it is clear which image should be preferred. I ask you to undo your edit yourself. --Leyo 09:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment to closing admin Please recognize that this user started the edit war by putting the image under discussion into the article and continues the vandalism (there is no other word for such a childish behaviour). --Leyo 04:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Leyo, if you would like to settle the discussion in a polite way, please mail me and do not call me childish.
- To closing admin: I changed the picture which was overcrowded and complex, the editwar was started after my edit on the Dutch wiki. To put all in the right order, my images is called wrong after more than six years. How can an image, if it would be wrong, not be deleted in more than six years? So in the first place my work is called wrong, afterwards I'm called to be someone who does not know anything about chemistry (maybe by accident), next I am called silly and childish and a vandal. Annabel (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This poor quality structure is misleading, does have an chemically incorrect N=N-bond; hence this picture is not educational, and subject to deletion.
- And personally I think it is a little strange if someone's admitting not to have any clue of chemistry but on the other hand does not listen to a chemist. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I did not see anyone admitting not having a clue of chemistry. By the way, it is very dangerous to guess people have a certain background just because you might not like their idea ... Annabel (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) PS: yes, I am a true chemist (as you could have seen if you read my user page), PS2: it is not the purpose to transfer your idea, by changing file names in group on an other wiki.
- Delete Nobody uses this structure with questionable geometry and low quality. Thus, the structure should be deleted. Best regards (Chemist) --Jue (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but plenty of people at schoool level chemistry have a valid use for simple diagrams that show topological structure without the bond angles. This is a valid reason for such an image. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- This applies to alkanes or organic polymers, but not to structures containing an azo group. It is a major property of the azo group that it is not linear, even though there are not branching atoms (because of the lone pairs).
- There are now the opinions of three chemists (of which one is a professor in organic chemistry) who uploaded thousands of high quality chemical structures against a non-chemist and a user who uploaded a few low quality chemical structures… --Leyo 04:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Using people's profession in this type of discussion, whether it is professor, lab specialist or researcher, ... is a non argument and is not desirable (even more, what is said here can be called a personal attack). And by the way, I am a PhD in chemistry. This is not the way to settle a different opinion about "chemical correctness" and a different way of teaching chemistry. Annabel (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, the point about the fact that the three of us drew and uploaded hundreds of high quality chemical structures and are (together with a handful of others) responsible for ~ 90 % of all chemical structures on Commons used in plenty of different Wikipedias is more important. --Leyo 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for finally starting to address why this image might be more than simplified and could actually be wrong. Despite it taking innumerable requests, and your other responses ranging between personal attacks, retaliatory tagging the questioner's uploads for deletion, questioning other editor's credentials (I'm not a chemist, but that doesn't make me a fool), and so little understanding of Commons policy that you cite an image being orphaned as cause for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Using people's profession in this type of discussion, whether it is professor, lab specialist or researcher, ... is a non argument and is not desirable (even more, what is said here can be called a personal attack). And by the way, I am a PhD in chemistry. This is not the way to settle a different opinion about "chemical correctness" and a different way of teaching chemistry. Annabel (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but plenty of people at schoool level chemistry have a valid use for simple diagrams that show topological structure without the bond angles. This is a valid reason for such an image. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I did not see anyone admitting not having a clue of chemistry. By the way, it is very dangerous to guess people have a certain background just because you might not like their idea ... Annabel (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) PS: yes, I am a true chemist (as you could have seen if you read my user page), PS2: it is not the purpose to transfer your idea, by changing file names in group on an other wiki.
- Delete as low-resolution and chemically misleading and replaceable by images that are not misleading (and also higher-resolution). I can envision two audiences (editors and readers and reusers): those who know about azo geometry and those who don't. Among those who know about geometry, either they know it's wrong (and therefore this image is not usable) or they don't know what it should and this image explicitly lies to them (I can't comprehend why that would we should be doing that). In either of those "reader knows geometry" cases, the geometrically correct one is the usable replacement that solves the "educationally useful" problem. Or else the audience doesn't know about geometry and only cares about topology, or even just a pretty picture of a chemical. In these cases, the topologically equivalent and pretty ones that are also chemically correct are just as usable (and as a bonus, they are correct...I don't see the advantage to using an incorrect image when we have a correct one, even if the audience knows nothing about the field of the mistake at all). Commons:SCOPE is clear that we do want "realistically useful for an educational purpose" images, and that having more than one image of a subject is fine if there is a distinct advantage to each. In particular, "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." So what does this image add that is educationally distinct? Scope notes that simply higher-quality or more-recent alternative "similar" images do not automatically make older ones deletable due to redundancy, however, "poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples". The chemical fact is that this group is not linear, and it's not correct to say it is (or even to say "azo geometry isn't a chemical detail that actually matters so let's not care if we do it wrong" since it's just as easy to do it right)--cis and trans diazene compounds (and E/Z at imines in general) are chemically distinct species. There are certainly contexts where it really doesn't matter, and a valid educational use exists for a diagram that doesn't illustrate geometry. But this diagram does illustrate geometry, whether that's the intent or not. DMacks (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thank you for this clear reasoning. I was obviously not able to make my point clear enough. --Leyo 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- For those who want to read into the issue, please have a look at the reference book used in academic teaching: "Introduction into organic chemistry (Fourth edition)" edited by Andrew Streitweiser, 1999, page 782 to 801. I cite from the English wikipedia: "Andrew Streitwieser (born 1927) is an American chemist known for his contributions to physical organic chemistry.". In the cited book, different molecular structures of azo compounds are shown, with both N-atoms drawn in the same way as in this figure (examples of the same projection as the methyl groups can be found in the rest of the book). So, if this figure is considered wrong, then also Andrew Streitwieser is wrong. How can you combine this two: being wrong and one of those chemists known, respected and recognised in the broad academic community? Annabel (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thank you for this clear reasoning. I was obviously not able to make my point clear enough. --Leyo 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yet another, even more interesting argument, in this comparison is the figure on the English wikipedia showing the different styles of drawing a methyl group: see the second drawing on en:methyl. It does not make a single difference if you change the H and R letters with something else. So also wikipedia is wrong then ... ? Annabel (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have this edition of Streitwieser's book available and it's not in Google Books, so I cannot really comment on this. It might be that he used –N=N– inline or to save space. Please do not consider it as a personal attack, but IMO your comparison to the methyl group is unsuitable. --Leyo 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have that edition, which is actually copyright 1992, and generally does not use as much high-quality graphics as what we now see in current editions of recently-written texts. Leyo appears to be correct. In the cases where it is explicitly written with linear geometry and all three bonds visible as "X-N=N-X", it is in either a chart entry or part of a chemical reaction where this shape fits the page layout well. There is a highlight box in the section the very explicitly discusses the cis/trans nature of the actual geometry of the azo group. And in places where there are single diagrams or more space used, they are not drawn linearly. That's consistent with what I and others have said here: there's a place where this style might be used, but it's not geometrically "correct" at all and there's been no use-case presented where these particular linear-azo one could not be replaced. The examples we're talking about here appear to be displayable at the same overall size without loss of clarify, so the "need this alternative to save space" argument is both speculative (we don't have actual cases presented) and unlikely (it doesn't seem like it would save space). DMacks (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have this edition of Streitwieser's book available and it's not in Google Books, so I cannot really comment on this. It might be that he used –N=N– inline or to save space. Please do not consider it as a personal attack, but IMO your comparison to the methyl group is unsuitable. --Leyo 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yet another, even more interesting argument, in this comparison is the figure on the English wikipedia showing the different styles of drawing a methyl group: see the second drawing on en:methyl. It does not make a single difference if you change the H and R letters with something else. So also wikipedia is wrong then ... ? Annabel (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- As one more data-point for the modern acceptable ways of doing things, I checked the IUPAC standards (Pure and Applied Chemistry 80:22, 277–410 (2008)). "GR-4.1 Bond angles at chain atoms" states:
- When chemical structures are depicted in two dimensions, they should be drawn in a way that accurately represents the true three-dimensional structures... Collinear bonds are of particular concern when producing two-dimensional diagrams. Two bonds should be drawn collinearly in two dimensions if and only if they connect collinearly in three dimensions, and they should be drawn at an angle in two dimensions if and only if they connect at an angle in three dimensions...The relative orientation of adjacent bonds around a double bond should preserve the cis/trans configuration of that double bond. A single bond connected to a double bond by a 180° angle indicates that the cis/trans configuration is unknown in the corresponding structure.
- Conversely, "GR-13 Linear drawing style" states:
- When presented in the “linear” drawing style, acyclic chains are drawn exclusively with horizontal and vertical bonds. The linear drawing style is used primarily in introductory educational environments where it is necessary to keep the diagrams as simple as possible. It should be considered as not acceptable for general usage.
- So although squared and linear-azo might be used in some specific situations, it is not "correct" to do so, and it's only even "okay" in cases where there is a specific reason for it due to specific simplification or other benefit. But the diagram at hand actually looks more complicated when drawn this way rather than with normal angles, and (as GR-4.1 notes) really shouldn't be done in general. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, this argument is really to the point. I see the comparison between the two "drawing modes". If possible, can you send me a copy of the IUPAC standards document? (just let me know how to give you my mail address) Thanks a lot. Annabel (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- As one more data-point for the modern acceptable ways of doing things, I checked the IUPAC standards (Pure and Applied Chemistry 80:22, 277–410 (2008)). "GR-4.1 Bond angles at chain atoms" states:
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry of the azo group; orphaned, poor quality. Leyo 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- See also the active discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AIBN.png Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the quality is so bad (clearly below any level of acceptance) and there are several alternatives in Category:AIBN is a sufficient reason for deletion. We do not even have to discuss about geometry in this case. --Leyo 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of geometry, this image in too small and pixelated to be of much use, and any such use could use any of numerous existing alternatives, including vector and high-resolution raster. DMacks (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This poor quality structure is misleading, does have an chemically incorrect N=N-bond; hence this picture is not educational, and subject to deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Honest question - what's incorrect about the N=N bond? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- It not the right page to teach you the basics in chemistry. You are welcome to ask at en:Talk:Azo compound. --Leyo 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing the
<snark>and<small>tags somewhat. My point is not "What is a N=N bond?", but rather what the difference is between the N=N bond illustrated here (allegedly bad & wrong), and that N=N bond shown in File:AIBN-2D-skeletal.png that you seem to accept. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing the
- It not the right page to teach you the basics in chemistry. You are welcome to ask at en:Talk:Azo compound. --Leyo 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Honest question - what's incorrect about the N=N bond? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete due to incorrect azo geometry and also small size low resolution that in general inhibit (re)usability--existing alternatives solve all these problems. In response to Andy (and I may as well make this explicit here for anyone else reading the recent set of del-reqs): the problem is that the [whatever]-N=N-[whatever] should not be linear, but should (in this case) be zig-zagged or (in some rare cases) C-shaped. See Category:Diazene for the correct possible geometries of this type of structure (that's the parent compound...all the other ones we're discussing differ by what "[whatever]"s are present in place of the H atoms). DMacks (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, many better versions in Category:Naphthalene. Leyo 13:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and there are many superior equivalents. Ed (Edgar181) 14:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki: "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Japan. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States." Bulwersator (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The source country is of WOWOW is Japan, so COM:TOO of Japan applies. But this image seems too simple to be eligible for copyright. {{PD-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - a really stupid nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
while image may be legitimately released freely, its pure advertising and doesnt serve educational purpose Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Bad quality domesticated cat photo. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Bomispedia (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. Personal unused out-of-scope photos. This is not Facebook. --P199 (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted all: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
promotional material Motopark (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot, out of scope. Not related to above image from what I can tell. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, non-notable person. Prof. Professorson (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork, out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, personal artwork Honza chodec (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - too small (not usable) artwork of not notable person Honza chodec (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the diploma of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
unused and not educationally relevant. Description says it's used in "[uploader's] blogs", so it might be that Commons has been mistaken for free web hosting. Japs 88 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
to many licences. 77.178.78.128 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- there's no such thing as "to many licences". I can chose as many licenses I want if feasible.--TUBS
21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per TUBS Mbdortmund (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; group of non encyclopedic people at a meeting MoiraMoira (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Outstide the Commons scope since it cannot be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France. De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Where on the website does it say: You can use this under CC license. X-Weinzar (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Too complex for PD-textlogo GrapedApe (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep What is this, the "Nominate Tbhotch for deletion day"? The most original here is the letter "M", and since Trademarkia is an American site, fonts as fonts are inelligible for copyright. Simple text, colors and PD-shapes. Tbhotch™ 04:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no FoP in Paris, and this image is clearly focused on a copyrighted image. Prosfilaes (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
page left from unneccessary rename process, not needed anymore Trex2001 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain a little further. What do you mean by out of scope?
- The person is talking about COM:SCOPE, i do disagree however with that assessment. I think that it falls within scope as it's educational, and not only text (there are many diagrams (i hope they are not copyvio). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- The person is talking about COM:SCOPE, i do
- All diagrams are well cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.154.125 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not only about citing them. Citing is about where the information came from, not about copyright. Take a look at my recent contribution, i am citing where the information came from, but the copyright is mine, because i have remade the diagram. In academia it is possible to use fair use when adding something to the thesis, paper, etc, here it is not. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We do not generally keep PDFs that are not of books unless they are notable in themselves. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, see third page of the document Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is this out of scope?--Antarctica365 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is for media files, not simple tables of data that should be reproduced as required by Wikitables Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is this out of scope?--Antarctica365 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Incompatible license, second page of the document says: noncommercial. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this a copyvio or is the newspaper PD-ineligible? Stefan4 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question but I have to say this image is not bound by any Copyright laws and is fully in the public domain!!
- Could you explain why you think that it is in the public domain? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- " because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship " Just like other Newspaper logos :)
- Note that this is an image from India, a former British colony. Could the Indian threshold of originality be similar to COM:TOO#UK, since the country probably inherited laws from India? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Saying it inherited laws from the UK is absolutely incorrect. Yes, it is based on the same system which the UK practices but to say it inherited the laws is a spurious claim. Can you please remove the deletion tag from the photo now?
- I'm not sure why that is incorrect. British laws applied in India and when India gained independence, India kept most of the old laws, so it seems entirely correct to state that India inherited British laws. Since India inherited many laws from Britain, it is very possible that India currently applies the British threshold of originality which could create problems for this image. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't think this image can create an iota of problem. Also, it is my earnest request to you to solve this issue as soon as you can. This petty, trivial discussion is taking up your precious time, not the least, mine.
Moreover, if we really start looking into the country jurisdiction for every image on Wikipedia I'm sure half of them will just vanish :) So please I render this discussion closed from my side as I have nothing more to say frankly! Because I fail to see how this image can create a problem. I hope you will do your utmost to save this harmless, important image. I am sure good sense will prevail. Thanks very much! User:Merlaysamuel
Kept: Although much of what USer:Merlaysamuel says about the law is not correct, I agree that this is entirely text and too simple for copyright. I would question whether it is in scope, but it is in use at WP:EN, so that is not a valid reason for deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Not de minimis. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a strange request to me. Please see the (talk) page where others are questioning more such requests from this user. with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't understand your objection. Images of buildings are derivative works and thus copyvios unless the copyright has expired or freedom of panorama or de minimis applies. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom -- recent building as the only subject of the image -- I see no question here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted to "exploretalent.com", see watermark on photo. Yanguas (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Made in 1909 according to en:Drei Klavierstücke. According to en:Arnold Schoenberg, he didn't move to the United States until 1934, so the country of origin is Austria and this is thus unfree due to not yet being {{PD-old-70}}. Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted as according to Austrian rules it's now PD Platonides (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Made in 1909 according to en:Drei Klavierstücke. According to en:Arnold Schoenberg, he didn't move to the United States until 1934, so the country of origin is Austria and this is thus unfree due to not yet being {{PD-old-70}}. Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Essential copyright information is missing. The artist may have created this in 1923, however in order to know that the copyright has expired we need to know the country as well as the year the author died. Depending on the country it usually expires between 50-100 years after death. –Krinkletalk 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Essential copyright information is missing. mickit 17:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
very low quality penis image, no forseeable educational value 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some links for explanation to the uploader: COM:PS and Commons:D#Redundant.2Fbad_quality. Sadly, the photo is out of focus and has an un-useful background. Sorry, but Delete - in Category:Human penis will be many replacements. --Saibo (Δ) 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted works of art. De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image is currently being used in 2 important articles on the english wikipedia and are useful to the understanding of Brancusi's process and work...Modernist 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you anything to say about the copyright issue? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork without FOP, Brancusi died in 1957 PierreSelim (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted works of art. COM:De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atelier-brancusi-2.jpg PierreSelim (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
On the source site the file is marked as CC BY ND and so has incompatible license and shouldn't be used, I don't know if it had the ND restriction at the time when it was uploaded though. Plushy (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS. Megan2c2b 24 January 2012
- Note OTRS Ticket was received #2012012510002088, but it was not sufficient to confirm a release. —SpacemanSpiff 11:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Photographer could not be contacted to obtain permissions. Megan2c2b (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploader has confirmed that he is not the owner of the copyright. [3] Image was probably copied from this source Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not PD-old. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand; what is the problem ? --Gloumouth1 12:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in France, this is a recent building, the architect is probably not dead for more than 70 years. - Zil (d) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Info It would be nice to have the name of the architect, the date of death if dead. PierreSelim (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. According to [4] the architect is Renzo Piano (b. 1937). No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunalely, you're right. --Gloumouth1 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France. PD-old? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAC de Lyon.JPG. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: According to the Town Library of Lyon, the architect is Charles Meysson (1869–1947), so the building is still copyrighted. No FOP in France. (Will be deleted after transfer to fr:). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done : fr:Fichier:MAC_de_Lyon_(2).JPG. Bloody-libu (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Restored both uploads in one file. Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in France. De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The interiors were designed by Renzo Piano, but the façade is the former palais de la Foire de Lyon built in the 1930s. I personally don't know who the architect was so I can't say if he died more than 70 years ago (i.e. before 1942), and therefore I don't know if the building could be PD or not. We have to look for some informations about that.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: According to the Town Library of Lyon, the architect is Charles Meysson (1869–1947), so the building is still copyrighted. No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
no FoP in France, same file already deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAC de Lyon (2).JPG Bloody-libu (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and no need to undelete in 2018 since it's the same file in the other DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Restored after one upload moved to second file. Green Giant (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
For a reason Nimesh Perera (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Is this a joke nomination? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
For a reason Nimesh Perera (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no valid dr reason given Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Photographer could not be contacted for permissions. Megan2c2b (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The image is copyrighted here by Erik Berg-Johansen (3rd from top in the left column). The uploader User:Poolishh signs as Backsteet Girls, but there is no evidence he/she owns the copyright. Erik Berg-Johansen posts on flickr as "all rights reserved". Materialscientist (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Relevant images of same uploader:
- File:Dan Thunderbird.JPG - same page, same situation
- File:Bsgplakatamber...JPG - same page, but no clear copyright mark
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And the reason is....? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} licence seems to be unlikely: low image resolution and no EXIF data. Unkely that it is own work. --High Contrast (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, in this case Delete -- Blackcat (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 01:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
These look very much like copyvios. And even if they're not, for at least some it's questionable if they are in project scope.
- File:Raulriveros.jpg
- File:Elchupariveros.jpg
- File:Estadiorafaelmendoza castellon.jpg
- File:Vivalapaz.jpg
- File:Barra del the strongest.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Estadiorafaelmendoza castellon.jpg and File:Vivalapaz.jpg --> Delete: Likely copyvio, otherwise useless.
- File:Raulriveros.jpg, File:Elchupariveros.jpg, and File:Barra del the strongest.jpg --> Keep Probably taken by a poor quality camera phone, but useful as an example of Bolivian football supporters.
--P199 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Closed as this DR is essentially a duplicate of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barra del the strongest.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 13:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
1942-1943, not PD-Russia-2008 or PD-old. sугсго 14:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1945 Not PD-Russia-2008, not PD in Lithuania, not PD-old sугсго 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
NOT PD-old or PD-Russia-2008. en:Alexander Vesnin died 1959, his brother en:Viktor Aleksandrovic Vesnin 1950. sугсго 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Not PD, Vladimir Krinsky died in 1971 (see [5]) sугсго 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1943-1945. Not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old. sугсго 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Photo by Bruce Yeung/NBAE via Getty Images. Flickr user is not the photographer. The copyright belongs to the NBAE not the flickr user, license is invalid. Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, accepted. After visiting the homepage of Danny Bollinger, the flickr user who allowed to use the picture, I thought he was actually the photographer himself. Seems I was wrong, sorry for that. Zeromancer44 21:55, 27 January 2012
- Delete - Yup, the Flickr account is a mix of the photographer's own work and Getty Images photos of the Dallas Mavericks. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Getty images material, thereby copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This film (w:The 39 Steps (1935 film)) is not in the public domain, because its copyright was reestablished by the URAA ({{Not-PD-US-URAA}}): it was first published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026029/releaseinfo). It is not in the public domain its home country until 2051. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation: low resolution photo without exif from a TV show. It can hardly be "own work" as claimed. 81.84.101.176 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
COM:TOO, UK Bulwersator (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - such a stupid nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it is more complicated than edge logo. And why this nomination is stupid Bulwersator (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It just says "M" and "the mall" in ordinary characters. Not every fart is copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it is more complicated than edge logo. And why this nomination is stupid Bulwersator (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The components of this image are nothing more than text-based elements with simple, standard fonts and NO special decoration. As such, it fails to comply with even the UK's extremely low threshold of originality, and is thus ineligible for copyright protection, even in that country. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, May 5, 2012, 14:10 UTC.
- Keep Werieth (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think this really passes TOO. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the Ebay listing, it's an Sporting News photo, not a publicity photo which is still copyrighted. Jaranda wat's sup 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The photographer's stamp which is on the back is Photo Associates. No address was given for the photographer. Sporting News had the photo in their collection, just as newspapers have photos in theirs. We hope (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at another photo that was part of the Sporting News collection, you see this is a photographer who was not employed by Sporting News who has added his copyright notice on the back of this photo. The hologram is seen on this photo as well because Sporting News and some newspapers are using hologram stickers to verify that photos are originals and not copies. The holograms don't seem to scan or photograph well, but I think the word "authentic" or "authenticity" can be seen at the bottom of the hologram. We hope (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably the best scan/photo I've seen of one of the holograms. We hope (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at another photo that was part of the Sporting News collection, you see this is a photographer who was not employed by Sporting News who has added his copyright notice on the back of this photo. The hologram is seen on this photo as well because Sporting News and some newspapers are using hologram stickers to verify that photos are originals and not copies. The holograms don't seem to scan or photograph well, but I think the word "authentic" or "authenticity" can be seen at the bottom of the hologram. We hope (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Credible case of PD-US-no notice. Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems too complicated to be PD GrapedApe (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I' don't see any copyright mark or simbols. It's just text--Inefable001 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Question what is the threshold of originality in the Dominican Republic? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sinceramente, no sabría decirte. Pero está claro que la imagen se trata de sólo texto y no posee ninguna marca de derechos de autor.--Inefable001 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Translation from Babelfish: "Sincerely, i can't tell you. But it is pretty clear that the image is only text and has no copyright mark."
Kept: PD-textlogo applies. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:N-AMOfficialStar.jpg there was a belief that this image qualifies for PD-text. However, I am not certain. Plus if there was permission from the author of the image, then it needs to be explictly stated in an email to OTRS and not lost in the Facebook system. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Yann (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is it public domain in the source country (India?)? Please add a suitable copyright tag. --Saibo 08:38, 21 January 2012 –Krinkletalk 01:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
wrong duplicate of File:Coat of Arms of Togliatti (Samara oblast) small.png ShinePhantom (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SIG#UK: the signatory is still alive. Stefan4 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SIG#UK: signatory still alive. Stefan4 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
wrong licence, probably scaned or by other means obtained cover of a book Burga (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the photo of the person, who was declared as not notable in ru.wiki. He is Russian and most likely he will not be declared as a notable in any other wiki. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The model shown in this diagram was created by Al Angrisani [6], this diagram looks like it's been taken from a book or other publication but if it hasn't it's a derivative work. January (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Plan by Le Corbusier (1887 – 1965) still in copyright in France. Could it be transferred to en-wiki as w:en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad ? ELEKHHT 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and File:Жбанов Дама с собачкой.jpg, File:Жбанов скульптура ЦУМ.jpg. No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Уладзімер Жбанаў/Владимир Жбанов died in 2012. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright image. Elisardojm (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Might be {{PD-UKGov}}. If not, it needs to be deleted per COM:SIG#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SIG#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work (photo of a painting) with no information on the copyright status of the painting, which is dated 1937/8 so cannot be assumed to be public domain. January (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The work bears no copyright notice and no copyright registrations have been filed in the name of the painter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobinsonx (talk • contribs)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:BerinHader
[edit]- File:Blidinjsko Jezero (BiH) nr1.jpg
- File:Blidinjsko Jezero (BiH) nr2.jpg
- File:Blidinjsko Jezero (BiH) nr3.jpg
- File:Blidinjsko Jezero (BiH) nr4.jpg
- File:Blidinjsko Jezero (BiH) nr5.jpg
Images uploaded from various sites (example: http://www.bistrobih.ba/nova/?page_id=9960) --Smooth_O (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Romania. De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think is a De minimis.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis Sreejith K (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as an image that does not feature the work as the main subject. The sculpture is too prominent and centered. Most of the other elements (the trees, the ground et cetera) became secondary instead. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the image is being used in several Wikipedia articles related to both the sculpture and the artist himself, so it is not de minimis (it is the main / intended subject of the image). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The previous deletion discussion was erroneous. De minimis doesn't just mean that the subject occupies a small part of the frame; it means that it isn't the focus of the image, either when it was photographed or when it was used. The sculpture is clearly the focus of this photo - it's centered in the frame and it's the only point of interest. Omphalographer (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Not de minimis, but I think I remember it being established that Romania doesn't recognize a concept of de minimis, anyway. Is that a false memory? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Romanian DM is patterned on European DM model of "incidental" or "not-the-main-subject" principle as opposed to American "trivial" principle. The principle is enshrined in the copyright laws of many European countries, unlike American version that is based on court rulings (since there is no DM principle in the Title 17 of U.S. Code any way). The image here, however, is clear on which is the main subject: the monument itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I agree with you that it's the main subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope at present, but I couldn't reach an absolute proof. Yeffry is still unidentified and I only picked up some Spanish pages. The uploader User:Nickoarg must have created Yeffry El Jammal (and El Jammal Yeffry) in es Wikipedia. Then that was deleted per "not suitable for an encyclopedia". I found an IP user who was also concerned with the article, his photos in Facebook and so on 1, 2, 3, both Nickoarg 4 and Yeffry 5 6 are in Argentina. For the moment this file will not be used for the primary purpose. -- Via null (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I completed the nomination. --Via null (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope.Érico Wouters msg 04:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File has been deleted. INeverCry 06:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that "This image of text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain," Bulwersator (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Yaquis de Obregón is a Mexican football team, so laws of Mexico applies. But even then I think this is too simple to be eligible for copyright. Keep as per {{PD-Ineligible}} --Sreejith K (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that it looks complex because of the colors and the light but if you zoom in it looks like it is just a "y" sewed on some textile. Because of the way the photo was taken it looks more fancy and creative than it is. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Japan. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States." Bulwersator (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - while this image is pretty uncreative, I admit a) I'm not familiar with Japanese text; possibly the font is creative and b) Commons doesn't have listed the threshold of originality (or its equivalent) in Japan. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks very simple to be eligible for copyright. May be the background texture is, but even that appears to be too simple and can be easily recreated without any effort. Keep as per {{PD-Ineligible}} --Sreejith K (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Хрень какая-то Alexandronikos (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Хрень какая-то Alexandronikos (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SIG#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe its not OK. Will it be OK x years after authors death? Pyke died in 1948. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the signatory. That's why it says "Undelete in 2019" below. Currently, Commons can host signatures of any British people who died in 1941 or earlier. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect claim for authorship and date. It might qualify as {{PD-art}}. Leyo 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some problems were solved with this edit, but the author claim is still incorrect and the original author is still missing. According to w:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain it is still copyfraud. --Leyo 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see the problem here. The original author is unknown -- Andy has correctly noted that he took the photograph, but made no claim to copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This is apparently British, so maybe it is too complex per COM:TOO#UK? Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the text is a bit jagged, which a British court could find is enough for creativity, along with the light fading. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Previously deemed to be too complex for the (low) threshold of originality for works created in the United Kingdom, see the previous deletion request. mattbr 13:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 07:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Made by Arnold Schönberg in Austria and it was first published in 1920, 1921, 1922 or 1923. Becomes {{PD-old-70}} in 1922. If it was first published in 1923, it remains {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until the end of 2018. Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This was an upload from English Wikipedia, and remains in use there. If deleted here, this should be transfered back to English Wikipedia and marked as non-free content. cmadler (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If deleted, will this be undelete in 2018 or 2022? cmadler (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- 2022 because it remains copyrighted in the source country until that year. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, if it was published in 1923 it will be PD in the US in 2018 (95 years from publication), and PD in Austria in 2022 (70 years pma). Question: he was living in Austria at the time, but do we know this was first published in Austria? cmadler (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- 2022 because it remains copyrighted in the source country until that year. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think we should wait for the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA before we decide what to do with this file. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep pending an outcome to the URAA discussion, and pending clarification on when and where this was first published. It's probably a small enough excerpt to make a fair use claim on projects that accept fair use, but of course Commons doesn't. That's why if it's decided to delete Not-PD-US-URAA files, and if it's found that this was first published in 1923, this should be first copied to English Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)- Note that this one is unrelated to URAA as far as Commons is concerned because it is still copyrighted in the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gack. I knew there was a reason I didn't bring that up initially. cmadler (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted as it's now in Public Domain in Austria as well. Platonides (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Made by Arnold Schönberg in Austria and it was first published in 1920, 1921, 1922 or 1923. Becomes {{PD-old-70}} in 1922 2022 [edit by MGA73]. If it was first published in 1923, it remains {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until the end of 2018. Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This was a bot upload from English Wikipedia and remains in use there. If deleted here, this should be transfered back to English Wikipedia and marked as
ineligible for Commons to prevent re-uploadnon-free content. cmadler (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC) - If deleted, will this be undelete in 2018 or 2022? cmadler (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- 2022 because it remains copyrighted in the source country until that year. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, if it was published in 1923 it will be PD in the US in 2018 (95 years from publication), and PD in Austria in 2022 (70 years pma). Question: he was living in Austria at the time, but do we know this was first published in Austria? cmadler (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- 2022 because it remains copyrighted in the source country until that year. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
I think we should wait for the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA before we decide what to do with this file.
- Besides that this is a very small part of a "song" so are we really sure this part is long enough to be copyrighted? --MGA73 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep pending an outcome to the URAA discussion, and pending clarification on when and where this was first published. As to the length, it's probably a small enough excerpt to make a fair use claim on projects that accept fair use, but of course Commons doesn't. That's why if it's decided to delete Not-PD-US-URAA files, and if it's found that this was first published in 1923, this should be first copied to English Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)- Note that this one is unrelated to URAA as far as Commons is concerned because it is still copyrighted in the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gack. I knew there was a reason I didn't bring that up initially. cmadler (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oki I also understod the nomination as a URAA related one. I fixed the PD-old year above per Arnold Schönberg :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oops! I didn't notice the typo in the century... --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oki I also understod the nomination as a URAA related one. I fixed the PD-old year above per Arnold Schönberg :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gack. I knew there was a reason I didn't bring that up initially. cmadler (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whitney Houston just died and one of her songs was called "I Will Always Love You". The song and music is copyrighted but that does not mean that she has exclusive rights to use the term "I will always love you" because that part is too short to be copyrightable. And just like the alphabet music is made of a limited number of "bricks" (tones). You can't copyright the combination of one or a few tones. The question is "How many tones do you need before it is copyrightable?". --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, COM:TOO only mentions images and not text or notes. There are lots of notes of various kinds here which could make the section copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that if you have enough notes for it to be recognizable, that's enough notes for it to be copyrightable. A small, but still recognizable snippet might remain on en-wp under fair use (allowed there), but it wouldn't be free. Dolly Parton, not Whitney Houston, wrote I Will Always Love You. cmadler (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- At least it was a female :-)
- Even if COM:TOO does not mention notes I think it is safe to asume that here is a "to short"-rule. For example I would find it very unlikely that Dolly or Whitney could have copyright for one note by claiming "I have used that note/tone in my music so I have the copyright. So just because
was used in some music then the author does not have copyright for it. --MGA73 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that if you have enough notes for it to be recognizable, that's enough notes for it to be copyrightable. A small, but still recognizable snippet might remain on en-wp under fair use (allowed there), but it wouldn't be free. Dolly Parton, not Whitney Houston, wrote I Will Always Love You. cmadler (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, COM:TOO only mentions images and not text or notes. There are lots of notes of various kinds here which could make the section copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whitney Houston just died and one of her songs was called "I Will Always Love You". The song and music is copyrighted but that does not mean that she has exclusive rights to use the term "I will always love you" because that part is too short to be copyrightable. And just like the alphabet music is made of a limited number of "bricks" (tones). You can't copyright the combination of one or a few tones. The question is "How many tones do you need before it is copyrightable?". --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_title.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_small.png){kind=link}
_nr1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_nr2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_nr3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_nr4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_nr5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_title.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_title.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_title.png){kind=link}
_title.png){kind=link}
_title.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Deleted: It is certainly correct that there is music too short to copyright. However, this would be recognizable to anyone who knew Schoenberg, hence copyrightable. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted as it's now in Public Domain in Austria as well. Platonides (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
There seems to have been a long edit war between two versions of this image. The current version contains an unsourced image, so it should be reverted to the original version and all the unsourced versions should be deleted from the history. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is the unsourced image you are referring to ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The gas pump that CatJar has used to replace the Apollo one. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is on wikicommons (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potlatch_gas.jpg) what is wrong with the license? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep license OK -- Laberkiste (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is on wikicommons (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potlatch_gas.jpg) what is wrong with the license? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The gas pump that CatJar has used to replace the Apollo one. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 20:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please help to keep this file by updating the license tag to some non-free media tag? Not quite sure which tag to use.-Tux the penguin (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Updated it to what? Commons doesn't accept non-free media. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; no FOP for such works in UAE; the clock tower is not de minimis to the overall image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
All files in Category:Brockelmann Syrische Grammatik are still copyrighted. Carl Brockelmann died in 1956 so the copyright term expires in 2026. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have also added all files in sub-category Category:Brockelmann Syrische Grammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis to this deletion request. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Affected files and templates see here. --JuTa 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 001.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 002.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 003.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 004.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 005.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 006.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 007.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 008.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 009.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 010.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 011.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 012.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 013.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 014.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 015.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 016.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 017.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 018.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 019.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 020.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 021.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 022.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 023.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 024.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik 025.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 03.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 04.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 05.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 06.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 07.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 08.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 09.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 10.gif
- File:Brockelmann Syrgrammatik Inhaltsverzeichnis 11.gif
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Andres de arte4 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unduly suspicious. Small resolution and missing EXIF no proof of copyvio. --P199 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Web resolution images and missing EXIF suggest copyright violation FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Author "unknown" and date (1909) too young to assume that he is dead more than 70 years (which is required for the provided copyright tag). Saibo (Δ) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bei der Quellenangabe (ein Forum von Februar 2011) findet sich direkt unter dem Bild von 1909 "Public Domain, no known restrictions". Desweiteren der Hinweis des Verfassers Peter Hartung " ... Alle Fotos von Peter Hartung sind (falls nicht anders angegeben) unter einer Creative Commons-Genehmigung lizenziert. Siehe hier: Foto-Lizenz: CC-BY-NC-ND". Ein Todesdatum des unbekannten Photographen von 1942 oder früher kann von mir leider nicht weiter recherchiert werden. Ein Todesdatum von 1942 oder früher ist aber sehr wahrscheinlich. mfg --Drdoht 10:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Die Aufnahme wurde in Schweden gemacht (siehe Text auf der Postkarte). Für schwedische Bilder gibt es den Lizenzbaustein PD Sweden, z.B. siehe [File:Engelb1941vykort.jpg], ich ändere daher jetzt den "copyright tag". --Drdoht 15:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Danke für deinen Kommentar! Zu "Public Domain, no known restrictions" - da müssten wir wissen wieso es Public Domain ist - das kann ja jeder einfach so hinschreiben. Wenn CC-BY-NC-ND für das Foto wirklich stimmen würde, dann wäre es nicht nciht erlaubt. "NC" (nur nicht-kommerziell) und "ND" (nur ohne Abänderungen) sind zwei Einschränkungen der Benutzung, die für alle Inhalte in Commons erlaubt sein müssen (COM:L). "1909" ist das Baujahr des Schiffes, oder? Nicht unbedingt das Jahr des Fotos. Das Schiff gab es laut Forum bis 1959. Auf http://www PUNKT ak190x.de/Dampferalt.htm (wohl eine Postkartenverkaufsseite) ist das Bild auch mit jenen Angaben: Trelleborg DK, Angfärjan "Deutschland" o 30er, 4,00 € Z 2- V220. Was das genau heißen soll, weiß ich nicht.
- Zu PD-Sweden: Du beziehst dich also wohl daruf, dass das Bild von unbekannt vor dem 1. Januar 1944 erstellt wurde, richtig? Woher weißt du, dass es vor 1944 erstellt wurde? Und: steht nicht vielleicht auf der Rückseite der Postkarte der Fotografenname? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Danke für den Link der alten Postkarten http://www.ak190x.de/Dampferalt.htm, das erleichtert den Einstieg in weitere Recherchen.
- „Public Domain, no known restrictions“ hatte ich so wie dort beschrieben übernommen. Die Rückseite ist nirgends abgebildet.
- Das mit dem „CC-BY-NC-ND“ betrifft alle anderen Fotos des Forumsschreibers, ich unterstellte ihm daher eine gewisse Kompetenz bei solchen Einstufungen
- 1909 setzte ich für die Eröffnung der Fährlinie Trelleborg Saßnitz.
- Desweiteren orientierte ich mich etwas an Vergilbungsgrad und verwendeten Schrifttyp. Wegen der schwedischen Beschriftung Tågfärje / Angfärjan ist sie eindeutig nicht deutschen Ursprungs.
Eröffnung der Fährlinie 1909: två tyska färjorna "Preussen" och "Deutschland", samt de två svenska färjorna "Drottning Victoria" och "Konung Gustav V". Man beachte den Anstrich an den Schlöten. Bei den schwed. Fähren immer zweifarbig, bei den deutschen erst ab Anfang 1920/Mitte 1925 zweifarbig. Nur die deutschen Fähren tragen im Heckbereich zusätzlich den Namen Deutschland oder Preussen über der Einfahrthalle. [7] [8] Nachfolgende Beispiele zeigen, daß man das besagte Photo durchaus auch mit Anfang 1920/Mitte 1925 datieren könnte.
[9] schwedische Postkarte 1911 (SW, vergilbt, Schwesterschiff Preussen, Hafen Trelleburg, Schlot einfarbig)
[10] deutsche Postkarte, beschrieben 1918 (coloriert, Deutschland, Schlot einfarbig)
[11] deutsche Postkarte, ungelaufen, 20-30‘er (SW, Deutschland, Schlot einfarbig)
![[11]](http://www.heimatsammlung.de/topo_unter/18_ab_03/images_01/sassnitz-1076.jpg){kind=link}
[12] deutsche Postkarte, ungelaufen, 19?? (SW, schwach vergilbt, altdeutsche Schrift, Deutschland, Schlot einfarbig)
[13] deutsche Postkarte, Poststempel 1925 (SW, vergilbt, Deutschland, Schlot zweifarbig)
[14] deutsche Postkarte, Poststempel 1929 (SW, Schwesterschiff Preussen, Schlot zweifarbig))
1930-1939 wurde auf deutschen Postkarten für Saßnitz der Zusatz „Kreideheilbad“ verwendet. Abbildungen oft mit Marine im Bild. (siehe Google: "Kreideheilbad Sassnitz" und Bilder). In der nationalen schwedischen Schiffsbilderdatenbank
[15]
findet sich als einziges Bild nur Fo210184 (Bild.Nr. 210184 deutsche Beschriftung, vermutlich 1930-1939, Schlot zweifarbig) und „okänd fotograf“ (unbekannter Fotograf).
- Der Fährverkehr wurde kriegsbedingt 1940 mit schwed. Schiffe aufrechterhalten. [16]
- Im 2. Weltkrieg war im Reich das private Fotografieren von militärischen Anlagen/Vorgängen strengstens verboten. Zur militärischen Verwendung der bewaffneten Deutschland 1940-1946 siehe dt. Wiki Deutschland (1909)
- 1946 wurde die Deutschland von der UDSSR beschlagnahmt und in ANIVA umbenannt. Verschrottung nach 1959 [17]
Ich fasse zusammen: - Postkarte schwedisch wegen Beschriftung, Schwedischer Urheber unbekannt. http://samlingar.maritima.se/marketstore/ - Aufnahme 1909 bis max 1925 wegen Schlotfarbe, Aufnahme nach 1940 ausgeschlossen, da deutsche Kriegsmarine. - PD-Sweden ist ok, womit die ursprüngliche Aussage „Public Domain, no known restrictions“ (siehe gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanz weit oben) sich wieder bestätigt. so, nun ist das Thema erschöpfend abgehandelt. Jeg ønsker en smukke og koldig søndag. --Drdoht 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) eine Schwedentour die ist lustig
- Besten Dank für deine Recherchen! Schade, dass die Rückseite nicht leicht findbar ist. Dann PD-Sweden, okay. Ich kenne mich mit dem Schwedischen Urheberrecht nicht aus und weiß nicht, welche Voraussetzungen für "unbekannt" gelten müssen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Achja, wie du ja auf der Dateiseite in PD-Sweden nun auch siehst: die Verwendungen in de:Königslinie und de:Deutschland (1909) sollten entfernt werden. --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - also {{PD-Sweden}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- restored 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
DW of the orignal stamp (see source given). According to Commons:Stamps Danmark has no PD for stamps - which is apparently also what the author of the DW knows (therefore the creation of the DW)... The DW here is too close (that is the intent) to the original that no freie Benutzung can be assumed. Saibo (Δ) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Das Original findet sich im Internet und ist damit (offenbar verbotenerweise) frei für jederman zugänglich. - Das Abbild der dänischen Briefmarke besteht aus einer einfachen geometrischen Kombination von elementaren Dingen wie Gleiskörper + Rad + Wasserwelle + Schwalbe in stilisierter Form. Diese Grundelemente wurden für meine Replik mit den Grundzeichenfunktionen eines Graphikprogramms nachempfunden. Es handelt sich also um kein komplexes Gemälde.
- Meine Replik weicht in allen Farben vom Original ab.
- Meine Replik verwendet einen anderen Zeichensatz als das Original.
- Der Wert des Postwertzeichens wurde in meiner Replik an anderer Stelle plaziert.
- Die Zahnung meiner Replik ist internationales Maß.
- Ich sehe keinen Rechtfertigungsgrund, meine Graphik zu löschen. mfg --Drdoht 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anm: Die Ähnlichkeit von "geschützten" Google-Earth-Karten zu "freien" Openstreet-Maps ist 100fach höher als im hier betrachteten Fall. --Drdoht 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zuerst zum letzten: Bei Karten musst du beachten, dass die Geographischen Objekte eben an den Stellen sind, wo sie sind - deren Platzierung ist keine schöpferische Leistung. Bei deiner Briefmarkenversion sind zum Beispiels die Wasserwelle (mit den charakteristischen eckigen Bögen) und die Schwalbe fast identisch. Ich höre gern weitere Meinungen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
COM:TOO, UK Bulwersator (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - stupid nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it is more complicated than edge logo Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that me writing here
RETURN TO BASE....SLADEon a red background could be a copyright violation? And do you expect that "TOO UK" is a sufficient argument for that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that me writing here
- I think that it is more complicated than edge logo Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:TOO#UK and COM:PRP. Even if it is more simple than the Edge logo, it may still be copyrighted. The court never defined the Edge logo as a lower bound for the threshold of originality. Although the country is different, the quote "RETURN TO BASE....SLADE" could be seen as equally complex as the quote "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
