Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
personal photo, not using anymore Hermitmaka (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per good faith uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per uploader's request. Out of scope russavia (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I may be wrong about this, but do we really allow caricatures that we create to be posted here? caricature is of Lamar Smith [1] Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We do allow caricatures, so long as they can reasonably be assumed to be in scope. This is obviously out of scope. russavia (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Author died in 1977Jo0doe (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted all pictures by this painter. They will be in PD in 2048 Anatoliy (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No apparent notability and not used on any user page. Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
copivio Valdis72 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
incorrect image (doesn't match title...the upload wizard glitched) JohnDoe0007 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No use on any project at the moemnt, really not very useful in future. This, that and the other (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertising Lakokat (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Fake image Futbolero (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
corrupted Japs 88 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: not corrupted, just needs someone to remove the embedded color profiles Denniss (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Stated as GPL released but source web site states this is copyright and "all rights reserved". No obvious evidence the image is GPL licensed QU TalkQu 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The terms of use for the source of that image do not mention the GPL license. In fact, they quite specifically state that Riot Games holds all copyright over the intellectual materials in the game, and this image certainly falls into that category. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A hoax (the long description suggests this was a time traveler). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: useless image Denniss (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/07/02/61795_hpsport.html FNQ (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to have the Picture up in the internet anymore! It was a mistake to load it up. Guckindie (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by upl on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to have the Picture up in the internet anymore! It was a mistake to load it up. Guckindie (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by upl on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A "tuple image", where the description of tuple images can be found at the uploader's website. OR, not in educational scope. Prosfilaes (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I had earlier made a number of deletion requests of my own work. However, I do wish to be able to upload better images in the future. Is "OR" a problem on Commons? I think not. Is this out of scope? Are you kidding me? IMHO, this is a good way to visualize math that might otherwise be boring. Tuple images are approximately similar in scope to fractals, strange attractors, and cellular automata. The computer code is disclosed. So, what's up? Please delete this figure, as per my own reasons, but don't complain if a new image is uploaded in the future by saying that an earlier image was OR and/or out of scope. Doug youvan (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Magic pictures that no one but their creator understand or use are not in scope for Commons. There is an infinite selection of fractals, and I would be concerned about someone treating Commons like alt.binaries.pictures.fractals, too. The whole link off-site is bad IMO, since websites go up and down and Commons images should be explicable without reference to external websites.
- I think deleting images and uploading new ones doesn't help your case. If it's useful for an educational purpose, it shouldn't be deleted. If you want to constantly be deleting files, upload to Flikr or the like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Magic pictures that no one but their creator understand" is not really a fair statement. I just gave a talk in a math department to the faculty and graduate students. The work was well received. I agree we don't need a ton of fractal or tuple images. Reference is given to source code, so I think that is as much as I can do to reduce the appearance of "magic". I would agree with you if this image was generated by some random process, but it was not.
- When I have given talks in math departments, the image falls in the general area of research level discrete mathematics. Here "research level" would mean appropriate for graduate students in math. I don't think you are going to find a mathematician that agrees with you. It's like me looking at an image of an insect and saying the taxonomy is wrong. I am not an entomologist (except for computer bugs), so I would not comment on the images uploaded by an entomologist.
- If you look on the encyclopedia there is an article on tuples. If someone wanted to jazz up that article and make it more interesting for students, Pi.tif would be a good example. That would be analogous to placing a fractal image in the encyclopedia on the article having to do with complex numbers.
- BTW, did you notice the 3-levels of self-similarity in Pi.tif? Fractals also have the property of self-similarity.
- I am in the process of writing an e-book, "Tuple Imagery". It will be deposited in Kindle format on Amazon for the least price I can charge $0.99, and it will be on their "free list" for the longest term possible. I will try to keep a free copy up elsewhere. For any particular image on Commons, I will link it to an image of the source code - as I have done in the past. That methodology was discussed earlier on Commons when I started editing here. I asked, and that was the answer, so I am following instructions. So, you see, I have no commercial interests. My interest is to facilitate mathematics education.
- Prosfilaes, you are way out of your field here. Did I do something to upset you? I have no problem "eating crow" when it comes to my behavior and relationships with others.
- In conclusion, it seems as though we should not delete this image. I will replace it in the near future and follow your idea that "Commons images should be explicable without reference to external websites". If you agree that an e-book with an ISBN number on Amazon is stable, then I think we can work this out. Please withdraw your deletion request, and let's re-visit this issue in about 6 months, after I have finished and published the e-book on Tuple Imagery.
- For now, I will just deposit the source code here:
na = "3.14159265"; (* >10 is acceptable *) napad = PadRight[ToCharacterCode[na], 10, 0] (* can output >10 *)
(* Stretch numbers from -1.0 to 1.5 based on min max *) ma = Max[napad] mi = Min[napad] le = Length[napad] ra = ma - mi misub = Table[mi, {i, le}] shift = napad - misub newmi = Min[shift] newma = Max[shift] newra = newma - newmi scaled = N[2.5*(shift/ra) - 1]
backcol =.; backrow =.; sum =.; gsum =.;
backrow = Table[{x, y}, {x, 1, 1080}, {y, 1, 1080}]; backcol = Table[{x, y}, {x, 1, 1080}, {y, 1, 1080}];
backrowAll, All = {0.0, 0.0, 0.0}; backcolAll, All = {0.0, 0.0, 0.0};
tup = Tuples[scaled, 3];
For[j = 1, j <= 1000, j++,
backrowAll, j + 40 = tupj]; (* 1080-1000 /2 = 40 Pad guns*)
For[i = 1, i <= 1000, i++, backcoli + 40, All = tupi];
sum = backrow + backcol;
For[i = 1, i <= 1080, i++, For[j = 1, j <= 1080, j++,
If[((0 > sumi, j, 1) || (sumi, j, 1 > 1) || (0 > sumi, j, 2) || (sumi, j, 2 > 1) || (0 > sumi, j, 3) || (sumi, j, 3 > 1)), ( sumi, j, 1 = sumi, j, 2 = sumi, j, 3 = 0)]]];
gsum = Rasterize[Image[sum, ImageSize -> {1080, 1080}],
AspectRatio -> 1];
Export["C:\\Users\\3000\\Desktop\\Characters1\\" <> ToString[na] <>
".tif", gsum, "TIFF", ImageSize -> {1080, 1080}] ;
gsum = Rasterize[Image[sum, ImageSize -> {780, 780}],
AspectRatio -> 1];
Show[gsum]
I need to go through this code and "no-wiki" some characters that are used in Mathematica which happen to be Wiki Syntax! Doug youvan (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I stand by my opinion; this is all original research that has little value for Commons. Yes, you have a bunch of code that generates a picture. Just because it uses tuples in the code, doesn't make it relevant to w:tuple. You'll note there is not in fact a picture of a fractal on w:complex number. Instead of explaining what this picture means, you have accused me of being ignorant--with no knowledge of my background in mathematics--and touted your book. I've never accused of being driven by money, but I do regard you as a self-promoter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I just found this page, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_Mathematica_source_code , and clearly that is how I should proceed, given there are 28 other members. Doug youvan (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- And you'll note that all of those are explicable without reference to their Mathematica source code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The basic tenant of secular fascism is that God can not be mentioned in any aspect of life, mathematics, science, cosmology, origin of life, etc. In my opinion, this makes secular fascism a religion because it requires a strong Faith in atheist beliefs and goes even further to force these beliefs on other people via censorship and bigotry." Doug youvan (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that has any relevance here, then you've not clearly explained the use of this image, since it doesn't seem to have any religious component. In any case, none of my DRs, even on the religious images, have been motivated by antagonism to religion; if they represented something in the larger community, it would be fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Self request by uploaders satisfies speedy delete criterion. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sole contribution of uploader, sourced to Facebook, no apparent reason to think uploader had rights to the photo. Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete When the uploader says the source is facebook, I have to say delete since we don't know who own the real rights to the image or who the uploader is. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No apparent notability, not used on any user page, title and other captions seem potentially derogatory. Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Yes. This looks really bad on the 2 subjects. Plus the subject's aren't really drunk. Its just a pose or an act. So, it falls out of Common's scope. Its better to delete this image just to be safe for Common's legal position. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Incomplete Nacasma (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
incomplete Nacasma (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful copyright cleanliness (what photograph was the source?), lowest possible quality, hardly encyclopedic use. A.Savin 23:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Previously deleted and recreated outside of process. Probably a derivative of this non-free photo. Several of the user's uploads have similar problems, and several have been deleted in the past. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That file had a facebook filename before the rename.. According to the low low low res it in fact is from facebook. Doubtfully own work (uploader and "author" has just 2 edits - both at this file). And: the author should also be the depicted person according to the names...
To the uploader: Permission from photographer missing. Please read about Internet images and the intro of COM:L, thanks Saibo (Δ) 00:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Saibo, doubtful that he's the author and no correct permissions info taking that into account. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's reasons. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I (User:Varghesejacob, the nominator) cannot find how the author or the uploader "User:Rcnathan" is the copyright holder of this work. I find this is false as this work does not belong to the author nor has he shot the picture himself. I have found an exact picture in an official government website (http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharchives/2009/jan15-09/h2.html). Please view the website. The image in the website is clickable and downlodable. It seems to me the author has stolen the picture from a Federal Government website and claimed it be his own. Varghesejacob (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I (User:Varghesejacob, the nominator) cannot find how the author or the uploader "User:Wikimir" is the copyright holder of this work. The image is too small for viewing. I think the image is likely stolen or uploaded from some public domain like 'Google". Varghesejacob (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is likely a flickrwash from the supertiny size of the image. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted other similar images from uploader Captain-tucker (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I (User:Varghesejacob, the nominator) cannot find how the author or the uploader "Ram 121" is the copyright holder of this work. I find this is false as this work does not belong to the author nor has he shot the picture himself. I can't understand how a common man in India (by user name: "Ram 121") happens to receive a letter named to Dr. Madhavan Nair, Chairman of Indian Space Organisation. It is obvious that the uploader has uploaded the image from public search engine or some other place. If not, let the author present his evidence of his ownership of the letter provided. If not, then delete this image. Varghesejacob (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a modern book cover. Doubtful copyright cleanliness. A.Savin 01:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, COM:DW Captain-tucker (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
file recharged by me, File:Dett Castello Passerin d'Entrèves 1.jpg is better Patafisik (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Logo. No permission. Yann (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No description, no source, not used. Yann (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt whether this is own work. A few uses elsewhere on the web can also be found. /á(!) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems grabbed from facebook, possible copyvio. Image with the same name was already deleted before. Savhñ 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Completing an incomplet DR. --JuTa 13:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- nonsense (the user de:user:PapstValentin has been blocked indefinitely there) -- Emdee (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture, out of scope Japs 88 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 13:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Picture is from the music video "The Boys", so it's not free. --Christian140 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyright violation--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Doubt author actually owns photo. Techman224Talk 03:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Image from metal-archives.com. No license--Neo139 (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
really small image. plenty of others in the same category Japs 88 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Its copyright as artist died in 1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 2011-12-03 12:49:00 (UTC)
- Delete it pls Victuallers (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Image unusable and not in use. OAlexander (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Japs 88 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope. similar image has already been nominated by another user. Japs 88 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apaatv!!.jpg, all out of scope and unused. Savhñ 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No source. Dubious authorship. Yann (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused template. From the way it is now, I feel it is created by mistake. Sreejith K (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It was used to prove copyright of another uploaded file Samerfaraj01 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It is very rare that albums are published without a copyright; it doesn't matter anyway, because sound recordings from after 1972 are copyrighted. [2] Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - music clips are never de minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept - I misread the Hirtle chart; the uploader has convincingly shown that the album did not carry a copyright notice and thus it is public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The given source of this file is a publication dated 1971, and looks to have been published in Italy. Given this, I fail to see how PD-Ukraine applies. Without the photographers name, place and date of FIRST publication, COM:PRP applies. russavia (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope original research; not useful for educational purposes Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep It is original but i wouldn't call that nonsense research. But it's just this side of being educational to show some aspects of the christian cults' logic. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)- Delete - out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:SCOPE. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot imagine a use for this at all (plus it is not a Venn Diagram in the traditional sense). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Logo. No permission. Yann (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from speedy. Seems too simple. PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not consist solely of text and simple geometric shapes. There are three-dimensional effects including interconnected bevels, shading, faded reflections etc. which all contribute to reach above the threshold of originality. The similar but in some ways simpler en:File:Audi logo detail.png is clearly marked as non-free. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Was ich sehr unsinnig finde: Es gibt ein Diesel-Pkw-Modell, welches weniger CO2-Ausstoß als alle verfügbaren Neufahrzeuge hat, aber möglicherweise nur die gelbe Plakette kriegt. Ab 1. Juli 2014 wären dann vier oder fünf Anschlussstellen auf der gleichnamigen Autobahn nicht mehr für dieses Modell nutzbar, falls keine Ausnahmegenehmigung erteilt wurde. --84.61.139.62 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not PD in country of origin (Italy). sугсго 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The country of origin, however, is Turkey, in Nevşehir Province where the movie Medea was filmed. But no word of who the image created. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: no description. Which agencies? Yann (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not ineligible for copyright protection. Contains original authorship. I don't read Arabic, but the Google Translation of ar:File:Licp.pdf ("authorize the office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London as the owner of the site drop transfer alqatrah.net articles and images published the encyclopedic to the sites and other news reporting for the .public benefit, provided that the source is") does not seem to be a release for any purpose, but for encyclopedic and news reporting purposes only, and it does not seem to mention commercial uses and derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This also applies to the following files, also incorrectly tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} and referring to the same "permission":
- File:DemonstrationEgEmbassyLondon.jpg
- File:Sayyedmohammed.jpg
- File:Servants of Al-Mahdi.jpg
- File:DemonstrationEgEmbassyLondon1.jpg
- File:Alshab-Kuwait.jpg
- File:JawadTabrizi.jpg (might actually be {{PD-ineligible}}; I can't judge whether or not there's sufficient originality in the text
- File:Shiraziitomb.jpg
- File:Mrezashirazi.jpg
- File:Fadelforati.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. In "polynésie française", law of France apply. - Zil (d) 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No source, no description. Yann (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a TV screenshot, almost impossibly own photo by uploader. A.Savin 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
TV screenshot, unlikely own photo by uploader. A.Savin 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence provided that the author of this image is really dead for 70 years. 80.187.96.119 12:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
A photograph roughly from 1950s/1960s. Print artefacts are visible, presumably from a newspaper/magazine, hardly own work by uploader. A.Savin 12:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since the subject is born in 1906, it seems older than that. Yann (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, it is possible that the person is somewhere between 30 and 40 on this pic (although it is difficult to identify), but we should be cautious with 1930s pictures as well. - A.Savin 11:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
very small image of unknown artist. possibly uploaded by author for advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
small image of not famous painter, possibly uploaded by him for promotional purpose Japs 88 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr images under CC-BY-NC 2.0, see the original image page on Flickr.
- License was CC-BY 2.0 when it was uploaded in February of 2010 and was confirmed by administrators at that time. CC licenses are not revokable. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion not de minimis because the copyrighted building is the only prominent thing in the image. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Recent building + clearly the main object of the picture + no FoP in France (unfortunately) = deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Building is main subject of photo, no FOP in France. Techman224Talk 03:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion not de minimis because the copyrighted building occupies a large part of the image. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the text cited in the Permission field amounts to a free license; in particular, it doesn't seem to allow derivative works. Prof. Professorson (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation [3] Druifkes (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Picture once used in a page that has been deleted on en:wikipedia Japs 88 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: I couldn't find the policy on the site, probably all rights reserved should be assumed. Japs 88 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: I couldn't find the site's policy. all rights reserved should be assumed Japs 88 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo and therefore out of project scope? RE rillke questions? 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Table could be replace with wikitable (vi:Trợ giúp:Tạo bảng), I don't undrestand Vietnamese language, but this seems promotional to me. ■ MMXX talk 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 23:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a manuscript by the writer Sholokhov who died in 1984. A.Savin 01:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
________________________________________
Товарищ Савин.
Посмотрите пожалуйста
Правильно ли я сделал?
С Уважением,
Александр Стручков.
Kept: Permission received. Anatoliy (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Logo. No permission. Yann (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- In Belarus is the National Union of young people, is one of the symbols of State of the Republic of Belarus. Keep, licensed Template:PD-BY-exempt Abcent18 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Poster. No permission. Yann (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are Permission by license Template:PD-Ukraine 50 years. CPI-RUS (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Poster. No permission. Yann (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are Permission by license Template:PD-Ukraine 50 years. CPI-RUS (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio from [4], upload date here essentially later than publication date of the link. A.Savin 11:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Very likely a copyvio from [5]. A.Savin 12:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Very likely a copyvio from [6], site published in 2011 but flie just recently uploaded here. A.Savin 12:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
here - Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted - yeah, not coins, but labors, the same thing from the point of view of 3D object. --Cemenarist (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the nomination, which is likely the file can not be free. But please give some time, I wrote the author of the site's request to allow use of the photos under a free license.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have not received any response, Delete/Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be unclear wether the uploader created/has the rights to this image going by the description. Acather96 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi ! Manoliu has been my first wikipedian pseudonyme. If you want delete this old drawing, you can, because times passed since 20 years and it's no more so funny today... <:-( Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The uploader confirms he is the author. Dereckson (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Same picture as File:Roger Gray, Allen Morris and Eddie Bracken - PAWS FOR THE NIGHT 001.jpg Whaledad (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as exact duplicate. Techman224Talk 03:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Is there some reason this is not an obvious speedy? --Fæ (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate PierreSelim (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
First publication date uncertain but probably not before 1922 -Vexillum (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Authorship of drawing not clear Funfood ␌ 00:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Rosicrucianism, probably PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this file in 2007. I took this picture in a zoo, and it shows the bird in a misleading setting. Commons by now has many good photos of this species in its natural habitat (like on the beach), photos that are also better from an artistic point of view. No pages link to this file. tmichels (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be deleted? It's basically an advertisement for the painter. The caption even says "for sale. COMMISSIONS ACCEPTED." It's not an accurate portrayal of Curtis, and Wikipedia should not use artist's renditions for such articles and people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.29.126 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) –Krinkletalk 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, it's the only free image of Ian Curtis we have. —Angr 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, the image does not violates the rules and this image can be used here. Patrick Pearse just wrote a comment on your flickr account. Truu (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The image is a verbatim copy of [7]. It shows no own creativity of the author. As such it should be deleted as a copyright violation. The first discussion [8] did not discuss the legality of the derived work at all, but whether it was an ad. AzureDiamond (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- The copy at the Alchetron URL appears to be dated in September 2013, while the copy on Commons is from 2009. I am not sure it is a clear-cut copyright violation, or if the Alchetron website reused the Commons material without attribution. MBisanz talk 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only gave an example of the original image, without mentioning the original source. The author is Philippe Carly. The first use of the source image as a title cover seems to be "JOY DIVISION Lumière et ténèbres" (ISBN 2-910196-23-2) from 2001. Curtis is dead since 1980. --AzureDiamond (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the rights to both the photo and the derivative work would remain with the author Philippe Carly as stated by user:AzureDiamond. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Although the source gives the date and location of the photo as Australia 1930, this page gives the date and location as England 1951, which would not be PD-AUS or PD-US. A reading of the caption here on the source page suggests that the publishers may have misunderstood and read the date to be 1930, when the events in the caption took place. Also, the picture suggests the subject is much older than he would have been in 1930. Both his appearance and the background of the picture, showing a rural cricket match make the 1950 date and location more likely. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that Headley looks much older in this picture than he was circa 1930, and the Cricinfo link says it all. OrangeKnight (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Photo taken from a book. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete I don't know the age of the book, but it's recent enough to have an ISBN. As the ring itself is still around and photographable, we should not rely on scans from recent books. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted".
See: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag
And the image here is PD ( This original was made by Faraday in the middle of XIX. Or do we met here the mystification? )
So there is no copyright problem here.
Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 10:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The original transformer was made by Faraday, but this is a photograph. As the transformer still exists and may be photographed, we have no idea when the photograph was taken. A photograph is a photograph, and attracts copyright - it is not a simple mechanical reproduction such that it might not attract copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Correct title of the book: "Menschen, die die Welt veränderten" [9]; ISBN 9783876440583; 1977. Whaledad (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Superfluous redirect MW3 Warrior (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The original file was uploaded "20:00, 11 June 2009" so it has been around for a while by this name. It is usual to retrain such redirects (they are created for a purpose), deleting simply adds to the general link-rot of the internet. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded at reduced resolution (1000px-), not used in any article. Leyo 09:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neither is a reason for deletion. File:Karte Zürcher Bahnhofstrasse.png is different. -- Docu at 09:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then can we rename this file? I think adding a rename template in the middle of a DR is not really kosher, but this is a really bad name, especially since Karte Zürcher Bahnhofstrasse.png exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's just a crop (top and bottom part removed) of the reduced size version of the original map. The text is hardly readable. Hence, I prefer deletion to renaming. --Leyo 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then can we rename this file? I think adding a rename template in the middle of a DR is not really kosher, but this is a really bad name, especially since Karte Zürcher Bahnhofstrasse.png exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Additionally to Leyo's arguments the license was wrong, thus the image was a copyright violation.
File:Марголис_Ю.Д._читает_лекцию_в_Сыктывкарском_государственном_университете._Конец_1970-х.jpg
[edit]1970s shot, unlikely by uploader. A.Savin 12:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
1970s shot; unlikely by uploader. A.Savin 12:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
copy apparently from a website. No indication of any permission Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a signature of a living person who holds copyright. The uploader Hornik(Wikipedia)/Mhornik(Commons) claims that this is own work. So, this is either NFC and needs FUR or misleading image. Sumanch (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 14:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- non-free 3d art, derivative, same reason as the nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png. Also, the image at enwiki had a rationale + tag "non-free 3d art". --Daris Bayliss (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am the photographer. If you can explain what the issue is, I will try to help, but I don't understand any of the above. The image is a 2D representation of a 3D object that I would not consider to be "art" but a sports trophy. --Jameboy (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I have looked into this a bit further and the issue of the use of an image of the Premier League trophy is covered here. I have contacted the Premier League to request further details and to see whether they can provide an image that they are happy with. Awaiting reply. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteThe cited page does not actually address the issue, as it assumes that the image came from them. Here we have an image where the copyright on the image itself is not at issue, but the copyright on the trophy is. Since the trophy is presumably not in one place permanently, FOP does not apply and I doubt that the trophy is old enough to be PD. So, unless the Premier League will give us an image under an acceptable license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, this is probably not a keeper. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I have looked into this a bit further and the issue of the use of an image of the Premier League trophy is covered here. I have contacted the Premier League to request further details and to see whether they can provide an image that they are happy with. Awaiting reply. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am the photographer. If you can explain what the issue is, I will try to help, but I don't understand any of the above. The image is a 2D representation of a 3D object that I would not consider to be "art" but a sports trophy. --Jameboy (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- файл File:Volgograd - Building of Regional Committee of KPSS and Executive Committee 002.jpg полностью аналогичен, но значительно выше качеством. Настоящий использовать нет смысла. Википедия - не фотохостинг.Redboston (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment And why should this file get deleted? FOP? --High Contrast (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Built in 1950-1953 by architects Е. И. Обухов, А. С. Кулев. We need a license from their heirs. Now the photo is illegal.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reasons for deletion request new File online -Naoag (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We usually keep historical data series of this sort. They cover different periods and the earlier one may be useful in some contexts. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a keep or maybe delele but there is no evidence this was published in the US pre-1923 nor is there an appropriate copyright tag from the county of origin as required. Ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The source of the photograph is clearly marked: the Association pour la Patrimoine de Sainte-Adresse in France. This association owns the photograph and sent it to me specifically to illustrate an article on the building's architect, Gustave Rives. The photograph, taken in about 1916, is also historically significant, because the building, which no longer exists, served an important function during the First World War as the headquarters of the Belgian government in exile. Perhaps I have used the wrong copyright mark, but there should be no copyright issues, as the owners in France want it published and it is almost 100 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampsie (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 February 2012
- French law, under which this falls (see COM:L#France), is copyright for 70 years pma, or in the case of anonymous works 70 years following publication. We don't even know if this was ever published. It does not matter what the organisation wants or if they possess the photo and are it current source, we need to know when and if it was published and what the copyright status is which are entirely different issues. The organisation can verify their permission and copyright status by emailing the OTRS Team who will deal with them and figure out if the details you claim comply. As previously mentioned the US PD licence you added requires and additional licence from the country of origin. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am waiting for a reply from the Association to your question about previous publication. If you think it best that they deal directly with the team you mention, is there someone there who can write in French? Is there a French team that could help them upload the image to Wikimedia Commons? (Pcampsie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampsie (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 February 2012
- The OTRS team deal with all copyright permissions and will distribute any foreign language tickets to an appropriate person, so no need to worry about any language issue. Just get them to follow the procedure found at the link I gave above and someone will be in touch if they need to discuss the matter further. Good luck. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please advise me. The photograph comes from the municipal archives of the commune of Sainte-Adresse in France. Nobody at the municipality knows who the photographer was. As far as they know, it has never been published in any form whatsoever. All they know is that it was taken before 1918, probably in 1916. I can put you in touch with the local history association member who discovered the photograph, but I am not sure what to tell him. What is OTRS? How would he establish contact (he does not have a Wikipedia identity). What do you need from him? Local historians are usually senior citizens who use the Internet but may be a little overwhelmed by Wikimedia requirements (frankly, I don't understand half of the messages I receive and I am not a senior citizen). What is the best course of action? I would be very grateful if you could explain in plain language exactly how to proceed. (Pcampsie)
Deleted Based on the facts in the last paragraph:
- a French photograph
- an unknown author
- not previously published
- created before 1918.
French law provides that a work by an unknown author is under copyright for seventy years after publication, provided that such publication is within 70 years of creation. In this case, since it was not published within 70 years of creation, it has been PD in France since about 1988.
However, it is not PD in the United States, which we also require. The rule in the USA for an unpublished work of an unknown author is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first. It will therefore be free of copyright in the USA around 2038. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
here - Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted - yeah, not coins, but labors, the same thing from the point of view of 3D object. --Cemenarist (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
here - Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted - yeah, not coins, but labors, the same thing from the point of view of 3D object. --Cemenarist (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
here - Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted - yeah, not coins, but labors, the same thing from the point of view of 3D object. --Cemenarist (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the assicated text on w:en:Battle of San Jacinto ("Scene from "The Re-enactors of San Jacinto," a 2010 documentary by Allen Morris, commemorating reenactors.") this is a screen capture from a documentary by Allen Morris and thus Copyvio. Whaledad (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Allen Morris has granted permission to use images from the documentary for educational and reference purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldduckworth (talk • contribs)
- I'm sure we would all like to see how/where he gave such permission. (PS: please type ~~~~ after your responses, so that Wiki will add your name and a timestamp.) Whaledad (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Even if correct, permission for "educational and reference purposes" is not sufficient for Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio: [10] Whaledad (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a copyright violation. This photo is specifically licensed for use and permission is granted for its usage in any and all media free of charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldduckworth (talk • contribs)
- (A) You falsely claim you took the picture, whereas it clearly was not taken by you. (B) if such license was given it should be documented. Whaledad (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio: [11] Whaledad (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not a copyright violation. The image is granted for usage in any and all media in perpetuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldduckworth (talk • contribs) 2012-02-05T21:29:41 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Reginaldduckworth. However, could you please mention who the photographer is and where we can read his permission? Generally, please follow the steps described in COM:OTRS for already published media. If the photographer's permission (for everyone and every use) is not somewhere on a web page already then please let him send an email to the address mentioned in COM:OTRS. Thank you for your help! Please comment here again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This image is created from crop of CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed photo and is a nonfree photo of dead men which is not a main subject of source photo. Speedy deletion is disputed by uploader. Alex-engraver (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Freedom of panorama may cover this image and the original. I also wonder when the Shukshin monument in the photo was constructed? If it was done in the Soviet era, this may effect pd. INeverCry 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are in error by two reasons. First, when you uploaded this image, you treated all objects on free photo as free, but really they can be unfree. For example, photo could contain billboards with advertisements, non free logos etc. Second, objects, created in USSR now are protected by laws of Russian Federation as legal successor of Soviet Union (USSR laws with sort terms are not affected now after signing conventions about copyright). --Alex-engraver (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I have also tagged the image from this was taken -- there is no FOP in Russia. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Difficult to make sense of; not in use, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Medals managed by 'De Kongelige Ridderordeners Kapitel' (lit.: 'The royal knights chapter', in Danish usually just 'Ordenskapitlet') are protected by copyright in the same manner as the Danish coins. heb [T C E] 19:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000 Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
File:The_41_Congress_of_the_Belarusian_Republican_Union_of_youth_of_the_BRYU._(December_9,_2011).jpg
[edit]Very likely stolen from [12] (scroll down to see the original). A.Savin 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- 2009-01-15
No educational value, out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do we already have examples of flavoured condoms? Multichill (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even if we don't, this is probably not how you normally use them. I don't think that this could be used to illustrate a flavoured condom. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Hot. Interesting art. --Starscream (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed - this is potentially useful for all sorts of illustrative purposes. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Starscream & Mike.lifeguard Electron (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep encyclopedical since it may illustrate falvoured condoms. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete completely out of scope. -- smial (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Within scope and with educational potencial.Tm (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
_cover.jpg){kind=link}
![26 File:Роман_Михаила_Шолохова_"Тихий_Дон".jpg](#File:Роман_Михаила_Шолохова_"Тихий_Дон".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cover.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cover.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_cover.jpg){kind=link}
![01:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/05#c-A.Savin-2012-02-05T01:32:00.000Z-File:Роман_Михаила_Шолохова_"Тихий_Дон".jpg){kind=link}
![16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/05#c-Captain-tucker-2012-02-12T16:33:00.000Z-File:Роман_Михаила_Шолохова_"Тихий_Дон".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.google.nl/imgres?q=Gelderse+Munt+te+Harderwijk&um=1&hl=nl&sa=N&biw=1152&bih=773&tbm=isch&tbnid=YZ5ndCYhCtMrGM:&imgrefurl=http://www.stadsgidsenharderwijk.com/photo-gallery/slideshow.php%3Fset_albumName%3Dalbum01&docid=oLfWS4xAwng5xM&imgurl=http://www.stadsgidsenharderwijk.com/scriptdata/photo-albums/album01/Gelderse_Munt.jpg&w=512&h=384&ei=hXguT6ufKeLG0QWl9bGtCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=696&vpy=328&dur=2&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=187&ty=77&sig=100222076929140119996&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/05#File:Ian_Curtis_.28Joy_Division.29.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg 2012-02-03
Renominating on behalf of User:Doug youvan, who raised questions about the legality of this image at the Village Pump. Original discussion follows:
In your opinion, does this image violate law under the Dost test?
In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), the court developed six criteria. Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.[1][2]
- Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
- Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
- Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
- Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
- Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
- Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
and, please cite your geographical location because this is US Law. Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- YES - 2,3,5,6. Kansas, USA Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. The Dost test is to determine if an image constitutes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" of a minor. For the image in question, that is obviously not the case, since it only shows the left hand and part of the face. Further, unless you know something I don't, there is not necessarily any reason to think that the individual depicted is a minor. On either of those bases, it seems that the Dost test is inapplicable here. Geographical location is irrelevant. cmadler (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The concerns that this image may be illegal child pornography were not raised in the previous DR, meriting further discussion.
My opinion: if it were a minor in the image, one could reasonably argue that it's sexually suggestive and illegal content. The image is orphaned, and has an "artistic" style that illustrates the flavored condom outside of its usual context, limiting its utility (the subject would be served much better by a straightforward colour photo of a woman licking a flavored condom that is being worn by a man, although I realise we do not currently possess such an image). To be conservative under COM:PRP I would delete, especially upon review of the original Flickr uploader's account, which appears to consist mostly of personal photos of family, suggesting that this image may have been a personal photo of an underage friend or family member (whereas a professional photographer would normally vet any models for age).
The original image has been taken down from Flickr, and strangely does not appear to resemble the Flickr account's other images in any respect: it was scanned in from a print using a Fuji SP-2000 scanner, whereas the Flickr account's other pics appear to be taken with a Canon PowerShot SD780 IS, and is considerably higher in quality. This suggests it may also be a copyvio.
If the image is kept, should the {{2257}} tag be applied? I'm uncertain if it's applicable in this case. For the closing admin, Doug's post above should be counted as a Delete and Cmadler's as a Keep. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I just don't see any valid reason of deletion. This DR is absurd. One has to explain why the text above speaks about child pornography ! Where does one see a child on this picture ??!!! Stop being paranoid ! We can't reasonably use the precautionary principle with such a vague guess ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Another nonsense nomination which sees anything remotely sexual as illegal. Soon a photo of cucumber will be proposed just because it's not cut into small slices. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see anything sexually suggestive with this image; it could just as well be a standard balloon. Besides, licking on a condom isn't sexually suggestive in the first place, is it? Furthermore, the person looks old enough not to be a child. Thus, I don't think that there is any reason to believe that this is child pornography, and since I don't think that it is pornography either, there is no need for any {{2257}} template. The section on image quality and EXIF metadata could suggest that it is a copyvio, though. Conclusion: I don't think that the image should be deleted for child pornography reasons, but I'm uncertain about the copyvio reasons. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Is the person in this image under 18? Yes, I think so. Is this legally dangerous? I don't really thinks so. Is it a copyvio? Quite possibly. Has it been used in 3 years it's been on Commons? No. Is there any real chance it will be used in the future? No. Let's kill this thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree that this individual looks like a child. Notice the fingernails. Children have ragged nails. This individual's nails look like she had a manicure. Geo Swan (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Toddlers with Tiaras recently showed an episode where a toddler had an eyebrow waxing.[13] In any case, we're talking about minors more than children, and I suspect a number of teenage girls have had manicures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the case of young Jon-Benet Vincent every time I see a promotional spot for Toddlers and Tiaras. So I will take your word that the show displayed a toddler getting waxed. Clarification please, are you suggesting we treat every image of a female as an image of an underage girl, unless... Unless what? Unless, they have visible middle-aged wrinkles? Unless the uploader also uploads affadavits indicating the subjects are over 18? With image manipulation tools the underaged can be made to look ancient, and ancient people can be made to look like minors. Wouldn't it be common sense to treat this individual as a non-toddler, unless she looks like a toddler? Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, we're not talking about toddlers; we're talking about minors.
- I would suggest that we treat the issue the same way we treat copyright; that if there's serious doubt we treat it as underaged until proven otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, for the argument sake let's say that we'll change the policy just for this image. Now i ask myself a question "Is there serious doubt about the fact that it's an adult?", the answer is "No." VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, there are two requirements for something to be child pornography: there must be a child involved and it must be pornography. Would anyone seriously believe that this is pornography? I would say no. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, for the argument sake let's say that we'll change the policy just for this image. Now i ask myself a question "Is there serious doubt about the fact that it's an adult?", the answer is "No." VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the case of young Jon-Benet Vincent every time I see a promotional spot for Toddlers and Tiaras. So I will take your word that the show displayed a toddler getting waxed. Clarification please, are you suggesting we treat every image of a female as an image of an underage girl, unless... Unless what? Unless, they have visible middle-aged wrinkles? Unless the uploader also uploads affadavits indicating the subjects are over 18? With image manipulation tools the underaged can be made to look ancient, and ancient people can be made to look like minors. Wouldn't it be common sense to treat this individual as a non-toddler, unless she looks like a toddler? Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Toddlers with Tiaras recently showed an episode where a toddler had an eyebrow waxing.[13] In any case, we're talking about minors more than children, and I suspect a number of teenage girls have had manicures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep With regard to the issue raised by Doug youvan in this nomination, I think this is an easy keep, per my prior comment. However, Dcoetzee and Stefan4 have raised concerns about the copyright, and in that regard I'm less certain. cmadler (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Replace with http://www.flickr.com/photos/donna_dee/5020736698/ (age not a concern, correct CC license). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- To go with the hysteria shown by the {{Vd}}ers, that person is clearly wearing falsies and so is probably under 18. Also just look at the room, can you see any posters? That must mean she's the daughter of strict parents and is still living at home! -mattbuck (Talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Info I have sent an email to the flickr account owner asking for info. By the way: the "child porn" accusation is not really meant serious, is it? --Saibo (Δ) 19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)- Keep - the child pornography argument is simply specious. Could someone explain why this is believed to be a copyvio? I don't see anything about that. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting myself above: "The original image has been taken down from Flickr, and strangely does not appear to resemble the Flickr account's other images in any respect: it was scanned in from a print using a Fuji SP-2000 scanner, whereas the Flickr account's other pics appear to be taken with a Canon PowerShot SD780 IS, and is considerably higher in quality. This suggests it may also be a copyvio." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that. However, I'm not sure your point has any merit - the image was supposedly taken 10 years ago, so it's none too surprising the photographer wasn't using a camera which hadn't been invented yet. Flickr user's photos from that time seem to be mostly taken with a Sony Cybershot, although admittedly still higher quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting myself above: "The original image has been taken down from Flickr, and strangely does not appear to resemble the Flickr account's other images in any respect: it was scanned in from a print using a Fuji SP-2000 scanner, whereas the Flickr account's other pics appear to be taken with a Canon PowerShot SD780 IS, and is considerably higher in quality. This suggests it may also be a copyvio." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks underage, possible copyvio, educational use unlikely -> more trouble than it is worth. --JN466 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique educational value, freely licensed image. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Underage or not, this is in no way pornographic, the "child pornography" argument is absurd. There is also no solid hint at a copyvio, only speculation. --Rosenzweig τ 06:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg 2012-02-16
First of all, I am the photographer of this photo [dianaoftripoli]. I'm not even sure WHY this photo is on Wikimedia. the photo was posted on my Flickr account. This is in violation of how I want the photo to be used, so I do want it to be taken DOWN. For the record, no one involved in that project was underage. This conversation is completely idiotic. It was a college final project and of course it was taken with a high quality camera and of course it doesn't match my normal life because it is ART. You're all crazy. REMOVE this photo from this site and all others that I have taken. If you need to contact me, contact me directly via Flickr. Do NOT publish any more of my photos on another site WITHOUT my consent. PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, your posting of my photography AND COMMENTARY are in VIOLATION of my PRIVATE life and those who are in the photographs. You all should be ASHAMED. Bunch of speculative meddlers. Find something better to do and respect other people's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.21.206 (talk • contribs)
- Keep
- Could you prove you're the photographer ?
- There is NO violation of privacy whatsoever since you posted this picture on Flickr with a free licence - and licences are not revocable. When you decide that a picture of yours is free, you can't ask people to use it only the way you want it to be used (in that case, don't use free licences!)
- You have to explain how the commentary "woman tasting a condom" could be considered as private. Actually was is the original commentary on Flickr ? I personnally uploaded it on Commons and I changed the title of the picture so I suppose I had also changed the commentary.
- Your lack of politeness (it's a euphemism!) is not acceptable ! Please stop insulting people. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just a bit of confirmation: The comment above (174.109.21.206) is written by dianaoftripoli - I have asked for confirmation via flickr mail and got it at 16 Feb 2012 22:20:56. --Saibo (Δ) 22:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - we did have your consent - you published it under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence version 2.0. This means that you agreed that anyone could use the photo for any purpose, so long as they attribute you. Our flickr upload bot confirmed this licence. Such licences are irrevocable - you can't publish it and then say "nah, didn't mean it" and demand people stop distributing it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File within scope, published under a free licence, in high quality. It is not child pornography, non-human-sex-with-human pornography, or an image of Xenu. There is no reason to delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Flickr account owner's comments above make it clear that the subject is not underage, and is the actual photographer, addressing all of my original concerns. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and do not require consent. I apologise for not contacting the account owner sooner to ascertain the legal status of the image without resort to speculation. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion, all other grounds have been stated above. odder (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, analysis by Mattbuck (talk · contribs) says it all. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept - Consensus seems to be for keep. As I commented earlier (please note I did not !vote, therefore I believe I am eligible to close this), you published this under a free licence, therefore we did have your permission to distribute it. As Dcoetzee noted, the author has nicely addressed all concerns from the previous debates, so there are no side issues to worry about. One further note, if you want to have private photos, don't upload them to public websites. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Raising for deletion discussion again as based on the complaints about this image (Commons:Village pump#Ignoring privacy and photographers wishes) there remains sufficient concern that we may not be fully addressing Photographs of identifiable people (Moral issues). The photograph was taken in a private space (as far as I can tell) and the subject of the image is connected with the photographer's personal life as the source Flickr stream explains that all photographs are a document of their personal life. The photographer's identity is clear from the Flickr stream. Though it can be argued that only part of an identifiable person's face is in the photograph, the level of "identifiability" is subjective and as we have an active complainant, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution particularly when the photograph is easily replaced by a similar image of condom licking with no such complaint. Previous deletion discussion does not appear to have given enough thought to the guidance on the Moral issues part of IDENT or the associated resolution to improve and clarify that policy under wmf:Resolution:Images of identifiable people. Fæ (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see the permanent value of this picture. However, the photographer released this photo publically on Flikr under a Creative Commons license, leaving the photographer without much ground to object; and since it is a staged photo for a college final project, the subject knew they were being photographed for public distribution, so there's consent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright status is not mentioned in this nomination or under debate here, it muddies the waters unnecessarily. Considering the extent to which the Moral issues guidance of Photographs of identifiable people applies is the reason for raising this request. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- The public distribution of a college project and a minor flickr account is 1,000 times less 'permanently archived and globally visible' than Commons. I can readily imagine being fine with one and not with the other. --SJ+ 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Neutral I nommed this only for legal issues that have been resolved. I don't believe there are serious privacy issues with this image. Not enough of the person is shown to be clearly identifiable, and as mentioned, the subject knew it would be displayed to a larger audience (although perhaps they didn't know it'd be on the Internet). In the absence of a direct complaint from the subject I see no compelling reason to delete. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Upon considering User:Rd232's opinion at the Village pump, I think there is a risk that the image together with the source information, and info on Flickr, could be used to nail down the identity of the person in the photo. Although the subject was aware it would be used, its educational purpose is not clear - I can't imagine an educational use where it wouldn't be confusing. It's also replacable. Moving to neutral. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Dcoetzee that the individual depicted is not really identifiable. As to the "Moral issues" section of COM:Photographs of identifiable people, there's nothing there that really applies to a posed photo such as this, which does not demean or ridicule the subject, was not unfairly obtained, and does not intrude into the subject's private or family life at all (let alone "unreasonably"). cmadler (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but crop slightly tighter to remove all distinguishing features for sure. If there are no features to identify, no way you can "nail down the identity of the person." It's not a very important picture, yeah, and it's replaceable, but the reasons for deletion are too weak even for this picture. Trycatch (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and applied the crop. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still identifiable IMO. Trycatch (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and applied the crop. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Based purely on what the image shows, then it is probably not possible, or at least very hard, to identify the person. However, as mentioned on the Village Pump, if you look on the broader context of the image and its description, the image's Flickr page, the image's upload and comment history, it is not too difficult if someone really has the time and interest in doing so, to narrow it down to a specific town, and from there a house and a name. When the owner also wish the image removed and the image is not actually in use anywhere, I don't see why those wishes can't be adhered to. -Laniala (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Additional Comment: Taking more time and looking through the whole page and the keep comments I have to wonder why so many want to keep this picture kept solely on the principle that the license it once had allowed it to be freely used. This image is not in use, and it can be easily be replaced by a new picture by anyone that are willing to do so. The image's owner requested, perhaps not in the most graceful manner, for the image to be removed. So, how much personal information is really too much? As said, I took a bit more time, and after 5-10 minutes it was very easy to find the full name (that includes the middle and last name) of the person on the picture (T.D.F.) and the spouse (D.R.M.), and the name of their dogs (B. & A.). And then it was not hard at all to find the name of their parents, when they were born, where they are living, where they work, etc. I really do think this breaks the COM:IDENT. -Laniala (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not the license it once had. The license it has. The image's owner gave us permission to use it forever, and when people who do that come back and yell at us for taking advantage of the permission they gave, it certainly doesn't raise our sympathy. I don't see how a person posing for a photograph for public display is doing anything that's private.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Laniala. You've got so much personal information about the photographer (not the subject), because she published all this info herself. If the amount of personal information in the web doesn't bother her, why this should bother anyone else? COM:IDENT can't be any relevant here -- it's about photographs of identifiable persons, not about photographs by identifiable persons. Trycatch (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, this image here on Commons is still free, the same image on Flickr is no longer free (it's not even available). And if it's private picture or not in this setting can be a matter of discussion. But it is not too difficult to figure out more personal information about the person on the picture if you look beyond the pixels and see the context of the image here on Commons, do one more click and get to Flickr. And that is what I thought Com:Ident was about — for a complete stranger to be able to identify the person in a setting the person depicted might not be comfortable with. Even when cropped the original image is still there in the page history. The link to the Flickr page is still there on the image's page (which it needs to be to adhere to the license). As for the personal information, it is not written directly on the Flickr page; they do no longer live where the Flickr page says, and many of the names used are nicknames. But from the context of Flickr and Commons together it is fairly easy to find a sites with the "other missing part" of these details, then add them together and get more information and so on and so on. -Laniala (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Laniala. You've got so much personal information about the photographer (not the subject), because she published all this info herself. If the amount of personal information in the web doesn't bother her, why this should bother anyone else? COM:IDENT can't be any relevant here -- it's about photographs of identifiable persons, not about photographs by identifiable persons. Trycatch (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not the license it once had. The license it has. The image's owner gave us permission to use it forever, and when people who do that come back and yell at us for taking advantage of the permission they gave, it certainly doesn't raise our sympathy. I don't see how a person posing for a photograph for public display is doing anything that's private.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Additional
- The first comment in this thread repeats the claim that triggered this nomination that the original photographer requested deletion of this imageeven though it ws irrevocably released under a free lisence. It this is true where is the OTRS ticket that confirms that their identity was reliably confirmed?
Further comments from the individual who started this thread seem to have dropped the claim that the photographer requested deletion. So, which is it.
With regard to the risk to their privacy individuals expose themselves by using the internet, let's get real. The only absolutely trustworthy way to protect one's privacy when using the internet is to never connect to the internet. Period. I don't see protecting photographers from their own decisions to be part of our role. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe the claims (mentioned by others) that this image is public since it is art, they base it on the same claim that the image's owner wrote those words. It was verified by user Saibo. And as mentioned already, this is an issue of does it or does it not break the guidelines in COM:IDENT, irregardless of the image's licence that allows it to be kept. Specifically (the way I see it) to the moral question of using such a picture, which may or may not (depending on the viewpoint) have been taken in a private setting, and expose unwanted information about the subject indirectly linked to on the picture. But I agree, if you want to be completely anonymous you should not connect to the internet. But when you break, or someone else breaks it for you, either willingly or unwillingly by mistake, and expose too much of your life on a relatively visited place, should those issues that in this case have been brought up just be flat out ignored by referring to the license? -Laniala (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first comment in this thread repeats the claim that triggered this nomination that the original photographer requested deletion of this imageeven though it ws irrevocably released under a free lisence. It this is true where is the OTRS ticket that confirms that their identity was reliably confirmed?
- Keep This is nonsense. The photographer had first released this picture with a free licence on Flickr with public visibility. There's no reason to delete this picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- This image is out of scope, there is no need to document every possible sexual practise Bulwersator (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The basis of this DR is the interpretation of IDENT, scope is fine for this image and following your view we would delete images from the Kama Sutra. There are many in-policy reasons for having quality usable non-sexually graphic images related to safe sex and oral sex. This image would be ideal for illustration of educational materials explaining condom use and most good sex education classes for young people should include applying a condom to a partner with your mouth, being one of the safest and reliable ways of doing it. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that scope is not an issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "following your view we would delete images from the Kama Sutra" - wtf? "there is no need to document every possible sexual practise" is not the same "nudity on commons should be banned" Bulwersator (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- You said "there is no need to document every possible sexual practise"; it's not much a stretch that to interpret that as a desire to delete material from the Kama Sutra that is not a sexual practice we need to document in your opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "interpret that as a desire to delete material from the Kama Sutra" - low quality straw man. Kama Sutra illustrations are obviously in scope as famous literature + are used as illustrations on multiple Wikipedia projects. But keeping things like File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg is IMHO a mistake Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- You said "there is no need to document every possible sexual practise"; it's not much a stretch that to interpret that as a desire to delete material from the Kama Sutra that is not a sexual practice we need to document in your opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The basis of this DR is the interpretation of IDENT, scope is fine for this image and following your view we would delete images from the Kama Sutra. There are many in-policy reasons for having quality usable non-sexually graphic images related to safe sex and oral sex. This image would be ideal for illustration of educational materials explaining condom use and most good sex education classes for young people should include applying a condom to a partner with your mouth, being one of the safest and reliable ways of doing it. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's the uploader's problem if the uploader doesn't know the implications of the licence under which he chooses to publish his images. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader to Commons is not the image's owner (based on the initial reactions). The image on Flickr has been "removed". It's very easy to upload something on Flickr and forget about your settings, in which case it uses the default for all your other images. And have you never in your life done a mistake, done something that you later regret you did, or wish you did differently?
- If this image really is so valuable despite the issues mentioned above in regards to COM:IDENT by f.ex. users Fæ and Rd232, and not just the principle of saying "you were stupid, live with it" (because that is what many of you basically are saying), then any of you are able to take the exact same image any time you like. All you need is to get hold of a condom and a camera, neither of which are exactly difficult. -Laniala (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is already a replacement http://www.flickr.com/photos/donna_dee/5020736698/ (like 90 percent close, the only exception is that this linked image had the condom full of something while this image up for deletion was out of a package. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it sucks. Aesthetically, this photo is head and shoulders over that one, and anything I could take.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've made mistakes; but then I try and own up to them. We don't know that it was accidentally uploaded the picture under that license. She could have not fully comprehended the consequences of the license, or she could have changed her mind afterward. (I've done the last on Commons, but I left the PD license there, because it was irrevocable.) She should be making those claims, not you. The principle is more "yell at us for your mistake, and we're not inclined to help you." The principle is also COM:IDENT doesn't apply when you start taking pictures for public display; there is no question to me that the subject of the photograph knew it was for public display as an art project, so where's the privacy issue?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- How this image was uploaded to Flickr, and how it got the license it had there is just speculation from all of us, but what do you think is most likely based on the owner's reactions? And why can't I make questions and assumptions just like the rest of you? Why does it have to be the image's owner? (Which I'm not surprised if you have driven away from Commons forever.) And lack of colours is not enough to say this image was taken for an art project, so do you have something else to back it up with, or is that just pure speculation?
- And really? You have to be joking with me. Some here are voting keep just because the owner of the picture in the 3rd deletion request yelled angrily? <sarcasm>That's very mature and very good reasoning.</sarcasm>. -Laniala (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Without other evidence, we have to assume it was legitimately uploaded there by a willful act. She knew best what the circumstances the photo was uploaded in and had a chance to make her case. I don't know of any place where someone makes an persuasive case and then it's someone else's problem when they don't make excuses for holes in the first person's persuasive case. It's up to you to claim your speedometer is broken, not the cops or the courts.
- She says on this very page that "It was a college final project and of course it was taken with a high quality camera and of course it doesn't match my normal life because it is ART."
- I don't get it; you act like we're bad people because we may "have driven [her] away from Commons forever." Yet the fact that taking abuse from people, including people like her, is driving people away from Commons, and the fact that photographers will verbally abuse you for using the photos they gave you permission to discourages people from using images from Flikr and free content as a whole, those are okay? I see nothing immature about not granting a courtesy deletion to someone who shows us none, about not rewarding rude behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- And without other evidence it can be equally assumed it was uploaded with wrong privacy settings. It is just assumptions from both of us if it was knowingly or by mistake. And again, why does it have to be the image's (presumed) owner that has to defend it? If that was the case on each and every deletion request Commons would in my opinion have been a mess. And what does it matter if I stumbled over the discussion on Village Pump while searching for something else, and what does my reasons for writing here, or my viewpoint of Commons matter at all? If the image is kept or not does not affect me personally, but I still think it breaks the technical and moral issues written out in the COM:IDENT guideline.
- And if this really had been a court room, unless you acted irrationally or it was very early in the legal process, it would have been a lawyer pleading the case against the other part, both parts digging up pro and con evidence based on your statements and presumed history of events. And getting a speeding ticket hurts you there and then (maybe a bit longer depending on your paycheck and how far over the speed limit you were ;), and most likely nobody will even think of it ages later. An image at a place like this probably keeps nagging at you every so often. And if your speedometer really was broken, while the police officer catching you probably would not believe it, do you or do you not think a court would take that matter into consideration before making their final verdict, and then the case would be history for everybody (except those digging through boring old court texts). (Of course the cost of bringing it up for a court would be more expensive than just accepting the fine.)
- If we believe that it was the image's owner writing those things, she also writes it was for a college project. It looks to be in a confined and private room. Irrespective of this being art or not, do you think she expected the image to be available to a small class or the whole world for the next decades with a direct link to where you can find more information about her and her family's life? Or might it just have been a possible uninformed mistake with the Flickr settings when first uploading it for the college project? Based on the assumption that the claims written are true, I believe it was the latter. The image is not in use (other than on the Commons uploader's page after this discussion started), is easily replaceable, and in my opinion also falls into one or more of the issues referred to in the COM:IDENT policy guideline. -Laniala (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- We can't equally assume that "it was uploaded with wrong privacy settings." Then we would have to delete every file we uploaded from Flickr, possibly every file uploaded period. We have to assume that people mean what they say.
- It doesn't have to be the image's owner who defends it. It has to be the image's owner who makes factual claims counter to what's in evidence. It has to be image's owner who says "I didn't mean what I said", not someone else to say "perhaps she doesn't mean what she said".
- It was available to the whole world for several years and probably an indeterminate length of time had this not come up. CC license or no, Flickr is not private. You want to presume that she made a mistake on the CC license and privacy settings? It seems a lot more justifiable to presume that a young adult who can work a camera can work Flickr, and that she regretted her choices instead of completely screwing them up in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- All we know for a fact is that the image according to the bot had the license now stated.
- If you can speculate on reasons then so should I and everybody else be able to too, even though we are not the owner. You assume she put that license knowingly. I assume she didn't change her license from the default Flickr offered. You assume she regretted her choices. I assume she wasn't aware of what happened until brought up. You assume that the image has been up for an indeterminable amount of years, which is also just a general assumption. You say that we should assume people mean what they say, but ignore the fact that she also says it is a violation of her privacy. So why again is it only the image's owner that can counter your assumptions with facts and bring up stuff when people here ignore what the image's owner says anyway?
- And as an additional tidbit, her Flickr account started in 2006. Some of the first images on her Flickr page are from the Texas bat festival, which as far as I can see first started in 2004 in Texas (but that might just be a bad source). The images from that festival are (exif?) marked as taken in 2002. However, the images from her 24th birthday are marked as taken in 2004 too, but if her marriage announcement can be trusted she would be 20 years in 2004, not 24. So, maybe as you put it above, the speedometer was in fact broken? -Laniala (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- How on Earth can you continue adding files from Flickr to Commons if you don't believe that we can trust licenses on Flickr? If you give a damn about Commons, you'll only upload photos you believe to be under a free license, and you keep arguing that just because a file is marked as under a free license on Flickr doesn't mean we can reasonably conclude that it's free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- How did this turn into my opinion of Commons? I'm not arguing that the image's license isn't correct. I'm not arguing the image isn't legal on Commons. I'm questioning the moral rights in still using it and if it breaks the Com:Ident policy. I'm questioning your assumptions in the way you claim the image got its permissions it had at the time of the upload to Commons, which you claim was done intentionally and knowingly. And I'm questioning your statement that only the image's owner has the right to bring in any (factual) claims which might not coincide with your or anyone else's assumptions and claims. I'm questioning why people believe it when the image uploader says it is art since it was taken for a college project, but does not trust it when the image uploader says it is breach of her privacy. (And I'm questioning myself why I even bother getting dragged into discussions like this. Keep the picture for all I care. It's not my me on the picture and not my privacy.) -Laniala (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr's default is and has always been "all rights reserved". Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- True, but at the same time you can change what you want as your default for all pictures you upload. If the user had "Copyright" as her default, then I agree she knowingly changed it to "CC-BY". If however the user had "CC-BY" as her default then she had to remember to change this when these pictures were uploaded, which might be easy to forget to do. -Laniala (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- New users of a website tend to click around the buttons seeing what things do and what changes, after they have clicked around a bit they start using the website. It may be some time later that the user realizes that the initial experimentation is having unintended effects. Maybe they've left there home address or email visible and personal information is leaking out across the web. Not all are savvy of the ways of the web, and not all are savvy abut copyright licenses. Surely the problems with people uploading snagged ARR web pics which they think are PD is enough to make one very wary as to whether anyone understands copyright licenses at all. To automatically assume, based on the license alone, that someone with a CC license on flickr actually understands the license or that they are conscious of using the license is a mistake. As this particular photographer has reset all their flickr uploads to ARR one can only assume that a CC license is not what was intended. John lilburne (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- How on Earth can you continue adding files from Flickr to Commons if you don't believe that we can trust licenses on Flickr? If you give a damn about Commons, you'll only upload photos you believe to be under a free license, and you keep arguing that just because a file is marked as under a free license on Flickr doesn't mean we can reasonably conclude that it's free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is already a replacement http://www.flickr.com/photos/donna_dee/5020736698/ (like 90 percent close, the only exception is that this linked image had the condom full of something while this image up for deletion was out of a package. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just introducing a possibility if we are going to face a DR of this image every 2 weeks. I do believe the image is in scope and I made edits to the image itself where the only thing you can see a nose and a tongue. That is not enough to ID a person, especially since there are no noticeable body modification marks on the face. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- You can still identify the person because (as I wrote already further up): 1) The image's history and (all) the previous version is still present. 2) The link to the Flickr page is still present, and it does not take much effort to assume who the image is of, and just a few more clicks to see images from which you can recognize the person, unless you crop the image to pieces. And just a bit more time and searching to get even more information about the person and her family based on the information on Commons combined with Flickr. -Laniala (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just introducing a possibility if we are going to face a DR of this image every 2 weeks. I do believe the image is in scope and I made edits to the image itself where the only thing you can see a nose and a tongue. That is not enough to ID a person, especially since there are no noticeable body modification marks on the face. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Appears to be out of scope, as the educational purpose is unclear at best. Out of scope + questionable privacy rights = precautionary principle. Powers (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per analysis by TwoWings (talk · contribs) and Stefan4 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is NOT out of scope ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- As has been stated repeatedly, the nomination in this DR is not about scope but about a request for compliance with IDENT and our interpretation of Moral issues which includes the quote from the UDHR of "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation". In this case the photographer is making such a complaint. Nobody to date has made a special case of public interest, justification of historic value, social impact or put forward any evidence to make an assumption of bad faith for this complainant. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know that. But since some people thought it was pertinent to write that it was out of scope, I tought it was pertinent to state the contrary ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, she released it under a CC-BY license. I don't think it reasonable to complain about a invasion of your privacy when you yourself released it under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this should not be a question about how the image's owner (which is not the uploader (TwoWings)) was wording herself angrily and thus, according to some, does not deserve to be listened to. -Laniala (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- She made no substantive claims. She never said that she accidentally put it under the CC license or anything of the sort. And frankly, I don't see that there's any moral value in letting people get what they want through abuse. "Hey, I screwed up" should get better results than "How dare you!".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keeping or deleting images on the basis of how polite the copyright holder is, rather puts us in the role of gods that require tribute and worship. There is no expectation that complainants must remain super polite in order to get their request taken seriously at Photographs of identifiable people, considering how Byzantine our policies and guidance is for new starters, one can expect complainants to arrive frustrated and often distressed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the implication is that although we don't generally remove images that are fully compliant with policy just because somebody doesn't like it, sometimes, we do remove images on request as a courtesy, especially if they don't seem very useful. But courtesies are normally extended to people who are nice to us. If the file were in violation of policy, though, it should be removed - and in such a case it wouldn't matter how disagreeable the person who points out the issue is. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator, you haven't provided any reason for us to trust that the supplicant is actually the photographer of this image.
I have participated in a number of discussions triggered by flickr uploaders wishing to claw back images they irrevocably released their rights. Yes, they arrived frustrated and distressed -- but not by our "complicated policies". They arrived frustrated and distressed due to flickr's internal policies. How do I know this? They said so. They said: "But flickr lets me claw back lisences, what is the matter with you guys that you won't let me do so!" Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- As you addressed me, I should reply. Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? I expect better of our community. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is this comment addressed to me? I did say this nomination didn't offer a reason to trust that the request came from the actual photographer. What was missing from your nomination was a link to the third nomination. In that discussion User:Saibo reported that a flickrmail confirmed the request came from the flickr uploader. IMO the time of the rest of us would have been saved your nomination had included this information. But I never thought this absence was due to bad faith on your part.
I stand by my belief the anger and frustration a few flickr uploaders feel when they realize how their images are used is not due to our policies, but is due mainly to their trusting flickr, when flickr did a terrible job of spelling out what a CC liscense means. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is this comment addressed to me? I did say this nomination didn't offer a reason to trust that the request came from the actual photographer. What was missing from your nomination was a link to the third nomination. In that discussion User:Saibo reported that a flickrmail confirmed the request came from the flickr uploader. IMO the time of the rest of us would have been saved your nomination had included this information. But I never thought this absence was due to bad faith on your part.
- As you addressed me, I should reply. Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? I expect better of our community. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keeping or deleting images on the basis of how polite the copyright holder is, rather puts us in the role of gods that require tribute and worship. There is no expectation that complainants must remain super polite in order to get their request taken seriously at Photographs of identifiable people, considering how Byzantine our policies and guidance is for new starters, one can expect complainants to arrive frustrated and often distressed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- She made no substantive claims. She never said that she accidentally put it under the CC license or anything of the sort. And frankly, I don't see that there's any moral value in letting people get what they want through abuse. "Hey, I screwed up" should get better results than "How dare you!".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this should not be a question about how the image's owner (which is not the uploader (TwoWings)) was wording herself angrily and thus, according to some, does not deserve to be listened to. -Laniala (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- As has been stated repeatedly, the nomination in this DR is not about scope but about a request for compliance with IDENT and our interpretation of Moral issues which includes the quote from the UDHR of "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation". In this case the photographer is making such a complaint. Nobody to date has made a special case of public interest, justification of historic value, social impact or put forward any evidence to make an assumption of bad faith for this complainant. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep free license, it is art (as the photographer states) so no problems with privacy because the photo was taken for public, the shown people knows about the photo and agreed, the person displayed isn't underage. Summary: no legal problems. The photo isn't out of scope. Only while wikimedia-intern-use isn't displayed at the file description, we don't know how much the photo is linked within WMF-projects, AND commons is a file-hoster-project for good free images around the world: using on hundreds of MediaWiki-projects we can't see here, additionally: why should have articles first and shot photos second? why not the other way? --Quedel (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- I went to the COM:VP discussion this nomination claims justifies deleting this image. As I commented there, no OTRS ticket number has been offered which would confirm that the person claiming to be the photogrpher/flickr-owner was actually who they say they were. While I agree to being polite to those who plead for special consideration when they request deletion of an image they published under an irrevocable free lisence, I don't think we should consider their requests until they follow our procedures for making sure we aren't the victims of a hoaxster merely pretending to be the photographer. Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity: If they identified themselves via OTRS, would that change your thoughts on keeping this image? --SJ+ 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- In general? No. But I regard some kind of meaningful confirmation of a complainant's identity as the important first step prior to considering their request.
User:Saibo wrote, during the third discussion, in February, that they sent a flickrmail, and received a flickrmail in reply confirming they were the complainant. Since I trust Saibo I accept that as good as an OTRS. I sent my own flickrmail, which I copied to this discussion's talk page.
As I wrote in my flickrmail, one of the five images from this flickr contributor was ploaded in 2002. I leave a thank you on the image page of every flickr image I upload. If everyone did this presumably this flickr contributor would either have changed the liscenses on all her flickr images -- or maybe they would have been won over to appreciating our use of her images. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- In general? No. But I regard some kind of meaningful confirmation of a complainant's identity as the important first step prior to considering their request.
- For clarity: If they identified themselves via OTRS, would that change your thoughts on keeping this image? --SJ+ 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The crop addresses one set of issues, which was thoughtful. I agree with Prosfilaes and Dcoetzee's comments that it adds little permanent value to Commons and has limited educational value. I think the benefit of keeping it is less than the detriment of rejecting the photographer's and possibly the subject's wishes. This is not a question of scope, but of kindness (and notability). --SJ+ 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete A picture of someone playing with a condom is not educational and is not irreplaceable even if it were educational. The arguments for keeping seem either to be saying it serves the photographer/subject right for not understanding licensing or pet theories about how much you need to see of someone's face for them to be recognisable. Unless any of the latter people can reference psychological studies, then their pet theories are worth zilch. It is best to err on the side of safety and assume that the person might be identified by those who know them. The original photo seems to be restricted on Flickr now, so there is no reason that there is not a genuine desire for privacy by the subject. Also there is a definite possibility that the subject of the photo and the person who took it are not the same person. We should therefore respect the image rights of the subject whatever the license put up by the person who took the photo and vice-versa--Peter cohen (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see much point in keeping this image other than the principle of the license. The photographer clearly wants to assert rights over it, so it's going to be problematic for anything hoping to reuse it. And since we are reusing ourselves, I don't see how anyone benefits from it being here. Kaldari (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous DRs. Not child porn, not copyrighted, published under a irrevocable free license, in scope, it should stay and this nonsense whould end once and for all. Fry1989 eh? 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this image is in scope. What educational purpose does it serve? Powers (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I support deletion for reasons that have nothing to do with scope. It happens to be in scope as it would be a fine image for a sex education class showing that it is safe to lick a condom using a non-sexually-graphic photograph. --Fæ (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this image is in scope. What educational purpose does it serve? Powers (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Alan Smithee solution
The flicke contributor released their rights, under an irrevocable free liscense. But now, years later, she says she doesn't like how the image is used.
There is a convention for Hollywood movies. When a director doesn't want his or her name associated with a movie they directed, the credits list "Alan Smithee" as the director.
I think we have to keep a record of the photographer who released their rights, so we can substantiate they did release their rights. But I would agree to having those records kept in an obsfuscated manner, provided the copyright holder contacted OTRS to further release their rights to have the image attributed to them.
I suggested this to the flickr contributor in a flickrmail yesterday. She hasn't responded to this suggested compromise at this point.
Oh yeah, here is a list of all half dozen images we uploaded from her. Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- That was a lovely letter you wrote her. I left a comment on it -- many charities do honor requests by donors to return their donations, including the WMF, and I think we should accept this request if she does not change her mind -- but I agree with Fæ that this would be a good template for OTRS use. --SJ+ 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- This may be effective if the user agrees to it, but now that the issue has been raised on VP twice, I'd be careful to check whether any of the VP's revisions could link the file(s) to the user. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good solution if the complainant agrees it. I have floated this generically on VP and it would be an idea to promote the concept for OTRS volunteers to consider in similar situations, where it would be less likely for the Commons community to respond well to a speedy deletion of an image previously given on a free release. --Fæ (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note that I coincidentally proposed exactly the same solution at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg, where it seemed eminently suitable. We may want to standardize this anonymization/Alan Smithee process. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- [I don't think it works there; the OC photo identifies the uploader, by its nature. -SJ 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Note that I coincidentally proposed exactly the same solution at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg, where it seemed eminently suitable. We may want to standardize this anonymization/Alan Smithee process. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Little or no educational value, and an eminently replaceable image. Respecting author's request due to COM:IDENT privacy concerns (identifiability should not be arbitrarily limited to looking at the image itself, ignoring upload history etc). Rd232 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manzuriqbal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely to be collection of promo images/fan art.
- File:Futurecop!' cartoon'd.jpg
- File:Futurecop! Unicorn Logo.jpg
- File:Futurecop! Live Band.jpg
- File:Futurecop!.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Growtreesgrowtrees (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely to be collection of promo/fan images.
- File:Harris with Javed Akhtar, Nishikanth Kamath and singers..jpg
- File:Harris at Vivaldi's house in Venzia.jpg
- File:Harris at Rome.jpg
- File:HOTE 1.jpg
- File:Harris Jayaraj 5.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- These aren't promo/fan images.Growtreesgrowtrees (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whats the reason you want to delete these files? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Very rare images. Couldn't find these outside. To the best of my knowledge these should be free images.Inspirationalsounds (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I probably doubt the same. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, As agreed in discussion these files doesn't seem to come under Commons deletion policy Goosebumps7 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, different cameras.
- File:Moozhy.jpg
- File:Holy Magi Forane Church.JPG
- File:Moozhipalam.jpg
- File:Nirmala college.jpg
- File:Stmarysarakuzha.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Melissagrrey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Computer visualizations of an architectural project. Unlikely by uploader, presumably stolen from a website.
- File:Lakhta Business Centre 5.jpg
- File:Lakhta Business Centre 4.jpg
- File:Lakhta Business Centre 2.jpg
- File:Lakhta Business Centre 3.jpg
- File:Lakhta Business Centre 1.jpg
A.Savin 12:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Duchy of Warsaw coat of arms
[edit]
The pattern is copyrighted (is one of the interpretations of the coat of arms). Original file was published on this site. Mathiarex isn't an author of this pattern, and he's just made some background's modifications.
→ Link to file[14] (please wait for loading). JDavid (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was some modification of Coat of Arms of Duchy of Warsaw but not from this site. template PD-Polishsymbol is possible. Mathiasrex (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is not possible, because this pattern was created by author of book, not by You. This particularly pattern wasn't published by the Government of Duchy of Warsaw or other executive powers. Also wasn't created before 1942. JDavid (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Private intepretations based on text descriptions are fully copyrighted. And here is obvious, that this image was stolen from the given website. So, Delete. Masur (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The similarity between the original and the modification is too obvious to miss, so sorry, Delete. Wpedzich (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work Herr Kriss (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
None of the uploads (which mostly are old Soviet propaganda material) are likely to be own works by uploader.
- File:The 41 Congress of the Belarusian Republican Union of youth of the BRYU. (December 9, 2011).jpg
- File:Logo Of The Oktâbrât Of Belarus.jpg
- File:Logo The Belarusian national Pioneers Organization.jpg
- File:Logo Belarusian Republican Youth Union of the BRYU.jpg
- File:The Belarusian national Pioneers Organization (БРПА).jpg
- File:The Belarusian national Pioneers Organization.jpg
- File:The Belarusian national Pioneers Organization BRYU.jpg
- File:Belarusian Republican Youth Union of the BRYU.jpg
- File:Medale of Voluntary People's Druzhina USSR.jpg
- File:Militsiya USSR, members of Komsomol.jpg
- File:70 years anniversary of KGB USSR.jpg
- File:Medal 50 years of OBKhSS the Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del (MVD) USSR.jpg
- File:Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann-2.jpg
- File:Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann (Poster-2).jpg
- File:Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann.jpg
- File:Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann (Poster).jpg
- File:Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann (Formular).jpg
- File:Direction at work from Komsomol, distribution to work after receiving the speciality.jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (The ceremonial raising of the banner of the Pioneers).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Young Pioneer Camp).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Solemn collection Pioneers - 2).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Solemn collection Pioneers).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster 2).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR.jpg
- File:Congress Of The Communist Party The Soviet Union (1986).jpg
- File:Congress Of The Communist Party (1986).jpg
_USSR.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 12:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ордена, медали и знаки СССР оставить по лицензии (en: Orders, medals of the USSR to leave the licensed Template:PD-RU-exempt
- File:Medal 50 years of OBKhSS the Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del (MVD) USSR.jpg
- File:Medale of Voluntary People's Druzhina USSR.jpg
- Исторические документы СССР (en: Historical documents of the USSR)
- File:Direction at work from Komsomol, distribution to work after receiving the speciality.jpg под подают под лицензию Template:PD-RU-exempt
- Сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие исключительно информационный характер: (прошел Всесоюзный съезд 1986 г.)
- (en: Reports on events and facts that have informational character: (was the all-Union Congress of 1986)
- File:Congress Of The Communist Party (1986).jpg,
- File:Congress Of The Communist Party The Soviet Union (1986).jpg
- File:70 years anniversary of KGB USSR.jpg под подают под лицензию Template:PD-RU-exempt - Abcent88 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Файлы плакатов СССР можно спасти по лицензии Союзной республики Украинской ССР Template:PD-Ukraine 50 лет - CPI-RUS (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster).jpg
- File:The Lenin Pioneers Organization USSR (Poster 2).jpg
- Both CPI-RUS and Abcent88 are sock puppets of Zergelin (all of them are indefinitely blocked in the Russian Wikipedia). -- Ace111 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: all by Jameslwoodard Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Old Soviet photographs, presumably scanned from printed sources, unlikely own work by uploader.
- File:Панков Илья 1953.jpg
- File:Burmatv1.jpg
- File:1980 г.jpg
- File:Балакирев Евгений Петрович.jpg
- File:Лейтинант Балакирев.jpg
A.Savin 12:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bumbershoot_2007
[edit]Category:Music performances in Seattle, Washington
- File:Allison Moorer at Bumbershoot 2007 01.jpg
- File:Allison Moorer at Bumbershoot 2007 02.jpg
- File:Allison Moorer at Bumbershoot 2007 03.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 01.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 02.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 03.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 04.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 05.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 06.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 07-cropped.jpg
- File:Bert Jansch 07-raw.jpg
- File:Bumbershoot 2007 - 03.jpg
- File:Lyrics Born 01.jpg
- File:Robbie Laws Bigger Blues Band at Bumbershoot 2007 - 01.jpg
- File:Robbie Laws Bigger Blues Band at Bumbershoot 2007 - 02.jpg
- File:Robbie Laws Bigger Blues Band at Bumbershoot 2007 - 03.jpg
- File:Robbie Laws Bigger Blues Band at Bumbershoot 2007 - 04.jpg
- File:Robbie Laws Bigger Blues Band at Bumbershoot 2007 - 05.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson 02.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson and the Explosives at Bumbershoot 2007 01.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 01.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 02.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 03.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 04.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 05.jpg
- File:Roky Erickson at Bumbershoot 2007 06.jpg
- File:Sarod busker 2.jpg
- File:Sarod busker.jpg
- File:Steve Earle & Allison Moorer at Bumbershoot 2007.jpg
- File:The Mother Truckers 01.jpg
- File:The Mother Truckers 02.jpg
- File:The Mother Truckers 03.jpg
- File:The Mother Truckers 04.jpg
- File:The Shins play Bumbershoot 2007.jpg
- File:Yunchen Lhamo 01.jpg
Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Jmabel took this pictures and gives no reason to delete these great and copyright secure images. I would say that they should be kept because they can all be used for a music performance topic and in Common's scope. These are quality pictures too. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, bot gone bad. I was trying to add a category to these and accidentally nominated them for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oooops Multichill (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of copyrighted book cover and interior pages. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the books. GrapedApe (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of all the images contained in it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
But the decoration at the top is only one portion of the image. Isn't there a principle that states that when a copyrighted image or design only appears as a portion in a panoramic photo, that it does not infringe copyright? Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, see Commons:De minimis. However I don't think it applies here. De minimis depends much more on the center of interest of the photo than it does on the actual percentage of the image that the copyrighted object occupies. With that said, more than half of this image is occupied by copyrighted photographs and they are central to the meaning of the image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator PierreSelim (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This deletion request will affect some 200+ photos. Having previewed the links in the template, and using Google translate, and by also viewing the English language pages on the site, I see that we are faced with the great possibility that all of these images will unfortunately have to be deleted. The site does not mention anything about the copyright status of the images, merely that use of anything on the site requires citations to be given. Nowhere does it state that derivative works or commercial use are allowed. It seems to me that we are faced with a Template:Kremlin.ru type situation, except in this case, it is even more clear cut and all of the photos and this template should be deleted. The last DR was closed with a reason of "no fixable issues". This is not how Commons operates, and when approached about the close, Jcb gave flimsy reasons for closing, such as the template was being discussed, not the photos. Now the photos are the subject of this discussion.
- File:001 O parte a delegatiilor de peste hotare.jpg
- File:001.Nicolae Ceausescu la varsta de 15 ani in 1933.jpg {{PD-old}}
- File:002 State and party leaders celebrating May 1.jpg
- File:005.Un grup de revolutionari de la Tatar-Bunar din timpul rascoalelor de la 19.jpg
- File:007 - Snagov communist reception.jpg
- File:007 Ceausescu mug shot Targoviste police 1936.jpg {{PD-old}}
- File:008.Portret Nicolae Ceausescu. (1936).jpg {{PD-old}}
- File:011.Portret Nicolae Ceauescu in 1939.jpg
- File:012.La invitatia lui Todor Jivkov, prim-secretar al C.C. al P.C.Bulgar, presedintele Consiliului de Stat(cleaned).jpg
- File:012.La invitatia lui Todor Jivkov, prim-secretar al C.C. al P.C.Bulgar, presedintele Consiliului de Stat.jpg
- File:012.Participants at the May 1st reception in Bucharest.jpg
- File:012.Portret Petrescu Elena in 1939.jpg
- File:015.Snagov reception 19650501 Ceausescu.jpg
- File:016.Vacanta-pentrecuta-in-Moldova-1976.jpg
- File:019.Vacanta-pentrecuta-in-Moldova-1976 (1).jpg
- File:025 11th RCP Congress.jpg
- File:025.ddd.jpg
- File:038.Conferinta Nationala a PCR din octombrie 1945 (aspect din sala) (16-21 oct.jpg
- File:049. 8th UTC Congress.jpg
- File:059. Tito and Ceausescu at the Romanian-Yougoslav friendship meeting.jpg
- File:105 Red Army soldiers in Bucharest 1.jpg
- File:1Nikola Ljubičić with Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:303 Plecarea spre tara a lui Wladislaw.jpg
- File:367 Prezentarea scrisorilor de acreditate.jpg
- File:381. Gheorghiu Dej birthday.jpg
- File:382. Gheorghiu Dej 60th birthday.jpg
- File:41658X1X2.jpg
- File:420 Conducatorii de partid si de stat.jpg
- File:545.Ceausescu family.jpg
- File:8 Oct 1944 FND meeting Bucharest (ANEF).jpg
- File:Aarne Saarinen.Jpg
- File:Adunare Piaţa Palatului August 1968.jpg
- File:Alicia Pietri de Caldera, Rafael Caldera, Nicolae Ceauşescu y Elena Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Amintore Fanfani.JPG
- File:Andrei, Ceauşescu, Brezhnev and Gromyko.jpg
- File:André Bettencourt in Romania.JPG
- File:Ardeshir Zahedi.jpg
- File:Armand Magnin mit Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Aspect de la sosirea în ţara noastră într-o vizită oficială, a preşedintelui R.S. Cehoslovace, Gustav Husak. În Piaţa Victoriei. (22-25 iunie 1977).jpg
- File:Berge Furre.jpg
- File:Bettino Craxi.JPG
- File:Bokassa portrait.jpg
- File:Bokassa with Ceausescu.jpg
- File:Boucetta.jpg
- File:Ceausescu & Gorbachev 1985.jpg
- File:Ceausescu - Queen Elisabeth II - 1978.jpg
- File:Ceausescu Anul Nou 1976-77.jpg
- File:Ceausescu Anul Nou.jpg
- File:Ceausescu receiving the presidential sceptre 1974.jpg
- File:Ceausescu with Bokassa 2.jpg
- File:Ceausescu with Bokassa 3.jpg
- File:CeausescuKim1971.jpg
- File:CeausescuSatuMare1970.jpg
- File:Ceauşescu family with tsatsos family.jpg
- File:Ceauşescu with Fernando Belaúnde Terry.jpg
- File:Charilaos Florakis with Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Charilaos Florakis.JPG
- File:Chivu Stoica.jpg
- File:Christian Remi Richard.JPG
- File:Constantin Pirvulescu.jpg
- File:Craxi.jpg
- File:Cu prilejul Conferinţei de la Berlin a partidelor comuniste şi muncitoreşti din Europa, Nicolae Ceauşescu s-a întâlnit cu Gustav Husak, secretar general al C.C. al P.C.C. (28-30 iunie 1976).jpg
- File:Cupa Campionilor Europeni 1986.jpg
- File:Dej cropped.jpg
- File:Dev Kant Baruah.jpg
- File:Dr. Rudolf Kirchschläger in Romania.jpg
- File:E165 meeting with agricultural workers.jpg
- File:E395 End of collectivization meeting medals.jpg
- File:Edgar Tekere.jpg
- File:Eduardo Frei (1972).jpg
- File:Edward Gierek (fototeca.ro).jpg
- File:Edward Gierek - portrait from 1976.jpg
- File:Edward Gierek with Ceauşescu1976.jpg
- File:EjércitoSoviéticoEnBucarest1944.jpg
- File:Eladio Garcia Castro - 1979.JPG
- File:Elena Ceausescu portrait.jpg
- File:Elisa Branco.jpg
- File:Emil Bodnaras.jpg
- File:Enzo Betizza.jpg
- File:Epoca Nicolae Ceausescu TV Show.jpg
- File:Fernando Belaúnde Terry.JPG
- File:Franz Jonas în România.jpg
- File:Franz Jonas.jpg
- File:Franz Muhri in Romania.jpg
- File:G247 - Adunare de doliu la Academie, la moartea poetului Tudor Arghezi.jpg
- File:G248 - Membri ai conducerii de partid şi de stat la catafalcul lui Tudor Arghezi.jpg
- File:G249 - Membri ai conducerii de partid şi de stat la catafalcul lui Tudor Arghezi.jpg
- File:G250 - Membri ai conducerii de partid şi de stat la catafalcul lui Tudor Arghezi.jpg
- File:Genscher-Ceausescu.jpg
- File:Gert Peterson.jpg
- File:Gheorghiu-Dej & Khrushchev at Bucharest's Baneasa Airport (June 1960).jpg
- File:Gheorghiu-Dej, Ceausescu & delegates in Feb 1948.jpg
- File:Gheorghiu-DejPaukerLucaGeorgescuRoman1951.jpg
- File:Gica Petrescu.jpg
- File:GrozaTatarescuGheorghiuDej1947.jpg
- File:GrozaTatarescuGheorghiuDejVishinski1945.jpg
- File:GrozaTatarescuGheorghiuDejVishinski21945.jpg
- File:Guillermo Rodriguez (Ecuador).jpg
- File:Hannelore Kohl.jpg
- File:Herma Kirchschläger.jpg
- File:Houari Boumediene.jpg
- File:Hua Guofeng-1.jpg
- File:Huang Hua.Jpg
- File:Hushang Ansary.jpg
- File:IICCR 017 Romanian communist leaflet.jpg
- File:IICCR A273 Communist party leaders Gheorgheni.jpg
- File:IICCR A472 Communist leaders Marasesti monument.jpg
- File:IICCR A473 Communist leaders Marasesti mausoleum.jpg
- File:IICCR B001 Romanian participants October Russian revolution 1917.jpg
- File:IICCR B006 Tatarbunary peasants.jpg
- File:IICCR B007 Tatarbunary peasants.jpg
- File:IICCR BA269 Mladenov Ceausescu 1978.jpg
- File:IICCR BA572 Bülent Ecevit and Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:IICCR C022 Stoica and Apostol greeting Red Army.jpg
- File:IICCR C057 Red Army Bucharest.jpg
- File:IICCR D036 Alexandru Moghioros.jpg
- File:IICCR DA023 Craiova prison Dej Stoica Vasilichi Doncea Petrescu Rozemberg.jpg
- File:IICCR E428 Ceausescu visiting agricultural farm 1963.jpg
- File:IICCR FA007 Dej Patrascanu Georgescu Ralea.jpg
- File:IICCR FA147 Dej Nicodim Mihai I reception.jpg
- File:IICCR FA186 Dej post 1946 elections meeting.jpg
- File:IICCR G005 May 1st rally in Bucharest.jpg
- File:IICCR G023 Gyanendra arriving in Romania.jpg
- File:IICCR G027 Chivu Stoica and Gyanendra.jpg
- File:IICCR G148 Ceausescu in Sighisoara.jpg
- File:IICCR G156 Ceausescu in Sibiu.jpg
- File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg
- File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda.jpg
- File:IICCR G539 Ceausescu Dubcek Svoboda.jpg
- File:IICCR G539 Dubcek crop.jpg
- File:IICCR IA174 Dej and Groza 1952.jpg
- File:IICCR JA050 Dej Groza Festivalul Mondial al Tineretului.jpg
- File:IICCR L008 Ceausescu IAS Amzacea.jpg
- File:IICCR L038 Nicolae Ceausescu with Lina Ciobanu.jpg
- File:IICCR L117 Ceausescu visits Canal 1979.jpg
- File:IICCR L155 Ceausescu Timis County corn farm.jpg
- File:IICCR LA112 Süleyman Demirel and Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:IICCR LA230 Ceausescu IUT Buzau.jpg
- File:IICCR LA502 Ceauşescu and Justin Moisescu.jpg
- File:IICCR N014 Ceausescu playing billiards.jpg
- File:IICCR N155 Ceausescu hunting boars.jpg
- File:IICCR NA026 RO anticollectivization uprising killed peasant.jpg
- File:IICCR W059 RO VS Rascani collective farm.jpg
- File:IICCR W077 RO BH collective farmers 7 Noiembrie.jpg
- File:IICCR W086 Scanteia 19620428.jpg
- File:IICCR Z224 Ceausescu visiting Buzau steel wire plant.jpg
- File:IICCR Z350 Ceausescu and Cristescu 1971.jpg
- File:Indira Gandhi & Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Ioanna Seferiádou.jpg
- File:Ion Gheorghe Maurer and Finnish Army.jpg
- File:Ion Gheorghe Maurer.jpg
- File:IonMIhalachePenescuYStoikaEnSuJuicio1947.jpg
- File:IuliuManiuAlegatoFinal.jpg
- File:IuliuManiuEnSuJuicio1947.jpg
- File:John Douglas Anthony.jpg
- File:Jorge Castaneda y Nicolae Ceauşescu.JPG
- File:Jorge Castañeda y Álvarez de la Rosa.JPG
- File:Joséphine-Charlotte vun der Belsch.jpg
- File:Juan Velasco Alvarado.jpg
- File:Just Lippe.jpg
- File:János Kádár (fototeca.iiccr.ro).jpg
- File:K S Hegde with Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg
- File:K. S. Hegde.jpg
- File:Kenji Miyamoto.jpg
- File:Khaled Al-Fahoum.jpg
- File:Khaled al-Hassan.jpg
- File:Khieu Samphan 1978.jpg
- File:King Gyanendra.jpg
- File:Kiss Iosif – Trg. Mureş fost soldat roşu în timpul revoluţiei proletare din Ungaria. 1919.jpg
- File:Knud Jespersen.jpg
- File:Knut Frydenlung.jpg
- File:Konstantinos Tsatsos.JPG
- File:Korvald cropped.jpg
- File:Kosygin and Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Kristen Helveg Petersen.jpg
- File:Kuznetzov 43062X8X18.JPG
- File:Lars Korvald & Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Laurie Aarons.jpg
- File:Leontin Salajan.jpg
- File:Li Jong-ok.jpg
- File:Lucretiu Patrascanu 2.jpg
- File:Lucretiu Patrascanu.jpg
- File:Lázár György & Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:ManifestaciónConGrozaTatarescu.jpg
- File:Maurice Tempelsman.jpg
- File:Mihail Sadoveanu.jpg
- File:Miner reading Scanteia 1944.jpg
- File:Misael Pastrana.JPG
- File:Moktar Ould Daddah - 1977.jpg
- File:Morarji Desai.jpg
- File:N. Ceauşescu şi alţi deţinuţi politici în lagărul de la Tg. Jiu.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceausescu driving the first Dacia car.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceausescu, Ion Ionita and Chivu Stoica.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu & Edward Gierek .jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu a lui Giorgio Napolitano.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu si Mihail Sergheevici Gorbaciov.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu with Bettino Craxi.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu with Enzo Betizza.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu with Helmut Schmidt.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu with Misael Pastrana.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu with Pol Pot.jpg
- File:Nicolae Ceauşescu, secretar general al C.C. al P.C.R., l-a primit pe Amintore Fanfani, ministrul de externe al Italiei. (9 august 1967).jpg
- File:Nicolae e Juan Carlos.jpg
- File:Nicolae Samora Graça.jpg
- File:Nikola Ljubičić.JPG
- File:Petar Mladenov 1978.jpg
- File:Pierre Christian Taittinger.jpg
- File:Pierre Harmel - 36092X5X22.JPG
- File:Pitesti highrise 1970.jpg
- File:PolPot.jpg
- File:Pompeyo Marquez & Nicolae Ceauşescu.JPG
- File:Portrait-André-Bettencourt-en-Roumanie.jpg
- File:President Habib and his Romanian guests paying tribute to Tunisian national flag.jpg
- File:Prezidiul RPR.jpg
- File:Primirea de către Nicolae Ceauşescu a delegaţiei Partidului Comunist din Mexic condusă de primul secretar, Arnaldo Martinez Verdugo.jpg
- File:Primirea de către Nicolae Ceauşescu, preşedintele Consiliului de Stat al R.S.R, a unei delegaţii de specialişti americani condusă de dr. Lee DuBridge, care se află într-o vizită în ţara noastră. (25 septembrie 1969)..jpg
- File:Primirea la Nicolae ceauşescu a dr. Helmut Kohl, preşedintele Uniunii creştin-democrate din R. F. Germania. În fotografie mai apar - Elena Ceuşescu şi soţia lui Kohl.JPG
- File:Primirea la Nicolae Ceauşescu a lui Eduardo Frei Montalva, liderul Partidului Democrat Creştin din Chile.(30 iunie 1972).jpg
- File:Primirea la preşedintele Nicolae ceauşescu a lui Vasil Bilak, secretar al C.C. al P.C. din Cehoslovacia, care a făcut o vizită în România.jpg
- File:Primirea lui Gioncarlo Pajetta, membru al Direcţiei al Biroului Politic şi al Secretariatului Partidului Comunist Italian.jpg
- File:Rashid Bakr.jpg
- File:Regiunea Autonoma Mures, delegatia PCR si Ceausescu.jpg
- File:Robert Reimann.JPG
- File:Romani din Canada.jpg
- File:Romanian fotoarchiv Robert Reimann.jpg
- File:Romanian soldiers in Transilvania 1944.jpg
- File:Romanian soldiers on eastern front 1941.jpg
- File:Rudolf Kirchschläger mit Herma Kirchschläger.jpg
- File:Rudolf Kirchschläger.jpg
- File:Scornicesti-Ceausescu.jpg
- File:Sigurd Ømann.jpg
- File:Simeon Aké.Jpg
- File:Socialiste Cehoslovace, Gustav Husak în R. S. România. La Uzina de autoturisme din Piteşti. (22-25 iunie 1977).jpg
- File:Stane Dolanc with Nicolae Ceauşescu.jpg
- File:Stane Dolanc.JPG
- File:Steaua Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg
- File:Steaua si Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg
- File:Stela Moghioros.jpg
- File:Suleiman Frangieh - FOCR.jpg
- File:SulzbergerCeausescu.jpg
- File:Teohari Georgescu.jpg
- File:The Ceasescs and Peróns on a common photo - A.jpg
- File:The Ceasescs and Peróns on a common photo - B.jpg
- File:The Ceasescs and Peróns on a common photo - C.jpg
- File:Todor Živkov (fototeca.iiccr.ro).jpg
- File:Vasile Luca.jpg
- File:VishinskiTatarescuGheorghiu-DejGroza1945.jpg
- File:Vizita lui Nicolae Ceauşescu în Grecia. Sosirea la Atena.jpg
- File:Vizita oficială a lui Nicolae Ceauşescu şi a Elenei Ceauşescu în Republica Populară Chineză. Vizita protocolară la Ciu En Lai.( iunie 1971)..jpg
- File:Vizita oficială a preşedintelui Nicolae Ceauşescu în Turcia. Întrevederea cu primul ministru Suleyman Demirel..jpg
- File:Vizita oficială în ţara noastră a preşedintelui Republicii Cehoslovace, Gustav Husak. (22-25 iunie 1977).jpg
- File:Vizita preşedintelui Consiliului de Stat al R.S.R. şi a Elenei Ceauşescu în Republica Peru. Cei doi preşedinţi împreună cu soţiile.jpg
- File:Voividenia - Ceausescu @ Sadoveanu's.jpg
- File:William Kashtan.jpg
- File:Zenon Nowak.jpg
- File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg
- File:Întâlnirea lui Nicolae Ceauşescu cu Luis Corvalan, secretar general al Partidului Comunist din Chile, care, la invitaţia C.C. al P.C.R., a efectuat o vizită de prietenie în ţara noastră. (23 mai1977).jpg
- File:Întâlnirea lui Nicolae ceauşescu cu Rodney Arismendi, prim-secretar al C.C. al P.C. din Uruguay, care la invitaţia C.C. al P.C.R. a făcut o vizită în România.jpg
- File:川島正次郞.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(16-21_oct.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The template says:
- Romanian National Archives identifies, processes, systematizes, and makes available any photographic resources, regardless of their format, created during/about the communist regime in Romania, so that anyone can use them free of charge.[1] According to existing legislation and regulations of the Romanian National Archives, anyone that uses these photographs, regardless of purpose or nature of the work, is obliged to mention:[2]
- The number of the photo (e.g. #G008)
- The complete name of the database (Fototeca online a comunismului românesc)
- The date of access to the database, in round brackets (e.g. (05.02.2012))
- The archive quota of the work: ANIC, archival database, structural part, thematic subdivision, quota (e.g. ANIC, ISISP archival database, Nicolae Ceauşescu – Portraits, 8/1966)
- Oppose It doesn't really matter what you say, the copyright holder (the Romanian government hrough the Romanian National Archives) allows wikipedia to use these images for educational purposes... --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are aware that Commons only accepts content that can be used by anyone for any purpose, right? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't really matter what you say, the copyright holder (the Romanian government hrough the Romanian National Archives) allows wikipedia to use these images for educational purposes... --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - as usual, Commons is shooting itself and the encyclopedia projects in the foot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please note Pieter, and you surely know this already, that these discussions are not a vote. You haven't provided anything in your argument which demonstrates that my assertions are incorrect. Please provide a valid reason for keeping, otherwise, you surely know your vote is simply going to be disregarded in its entirety.
- Comment Some of these files may be {{PD-Romania}}, however, without knowing their place and date of first publication, it is impossible to ascertain whether this is the case or not. I am going to make the same suggestion I made some 3 months ago -- someone may want to contact the archives and get an explicit release under a free licence, at which time images can be undeleted (if getting permission takes time). russavia (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – definitely! The only issue is that the tag given to these images cites the wrong arguments and misses the actual ones. See Template:PD-RO-photo for further details; it is said there that all isolated photographs first published in Romania before March 1991 (and communism ended in December 1989!) have definitively lost their copyright according to the 1956 law. The new law issued in 1996 was able to extend the protection only for photos published after March 1991. Therefore, the solution rests in adding the arguments found in Template:PD-RO-photo to the tag under debate, Template:FOCR. – Impy4ever (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep anyone that uses these photographs, regardless of purpose or nature of the work, is obliged to mention --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- But that does not address modifications or for possible reuse commercially. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep we are jumping the gun.Pernoctator (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- From what I have been able to read, the text of the template came from http://fototeca.iiccr.ro/picdetails.php?picid=30656X1X5732 (or similar images) which says "© Conform legislaţiei în vigoare şi regulamentelor Arhivelor Naţionale ale României, în cazul în care utilizaţi această fotografie, indiferent de scopul ori natura lucrării, sunteţi obligat să menţionaţi sursa – „Fototeca online a comunismului românesc”, precum şi cota arhivistică." in Romanian. The gallery main page also asserts copyright with the text "Copyright © 2008 Arhivele Naţionale ale României şi Institutul de Investigare a Crimelor Comunismului în România . Toate drepturile rezervate." so any of the templates to say that commercial reuse and modifications are allowed is not correct. Template:PD-RO-photo calls for copyright protection for "artistic photographs" for only 10 years and anything between isolated photographs issued between 1956 and 1991 should be public domain under that template. That means anything before 1956 we cannot have (and not sure how it will work under current Romanian laws and if they put anything retroactively back into copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Decree no. 321/1956 of June 18, 1956 cancelled any previous copyright law. Basically, all photos taken prior to 1956 are in PD in Romania.--Mircea87 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last law (Decree 591 of 24 December 1955) was indeed repealed according to Article 43 of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956. However, if you look at Article 41 of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956, it said copyrights still entacted due to previous laws would continue to be enforced until their times are up according to the new terms of that law). But if I read Article 7 right, the actual term is 50 years for copyright so I do not think the term of 10 years for photographs is correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What article are you talking about ("if you look at Article of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956")? Also, Article 7 mentions a 50 years term for all cases except those presented above (a, b and c, those with a term of 5, 10 and 20 years ) for juridical persons.--Mircea87 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article 41, my mistake. I pressed enter too early. As for the 5 to 10 years in Article 7, it says for artistic works only. Maybe it is just me but I have a hard time believing photographs will only be given protection for 5 years (10 for an entire collection) and that law is not making sense to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article 41 doesn't really change a thing: it basically says that copyright was legal until then and any money taken from copyrights will not be refunded. Also, any sort of copyright terms appear to be prolonged, but not more than the 5/10/20 yrs of the 1956 Decree. As I already said, all pics taken prior to 1956 are in PD because it cancelled all previous copyright legislation. The law doesn't make sense because it was a law of a Communist state.--Mircea87 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article 41, my mistake. I pressed enter too early. As for the 5 to 10 years in Article 7, it says for artistic works only. Maybe it is just me but I have a hard time believing photographs will only be given protection for 5 years (10 for an entire collection) and that law is not making sense to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What article are you talking about ("if you look at Article of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956")? Also, Article 7 mentions a 50 years term for all cases except those presented above (a, b and c, those with a term of 5, 10 and 20 years ) for juridical persons.--Mircea87 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last law (Decree 591 of 24 December 1955) was indeed repealed according to Article 43 of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956. However, if you look at Article 41 of Decree nr.321 of 18 June 1956, it said copyrights still entacted due to previous laws would continue to be enforced until their times are up according to the new terms of that law). But if I read Article 7 right, the actual term is 50 years for copyright so I do not think the term of 10 years for photographs is correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Decree no. 321/1956 of June 18, 1956 cancelled any previous copyright law. Basically, all photos taken prior to 1956 are in PD in Romania.--Mircea87 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I know some of the images are PD old, but I think the others could just be dealt with individually. I found some possibly Russian or Polish works in this group of images so an individual review must be needed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep, definitely, per Impy4ever : see Template:PD-RO-photo. We are indeed jumping the gun, or the shark, or whatever it is we are jumping. JJ Georges (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the photos in this category are not from "isolated photographs issued between 1956 and 1991" so what do you suggest to do with those that do not fit that timeline? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does "isolated photographs" means ? These are standalone works. JJ Georges (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Isolated photographs is standalone works. Template:PD-RO-photo gives out copyright terms for standalone (isolated) photos and photos that are part of a collection. Yet, when you look at that template, only those terms applies to images from 1956 to 1991. Several images that are part of this DR are before that time frame so I am trying to see what should be done or what even applies (if at all). Some are PD old since they are 70 years old and are a collective work (or the author is truly unknown or never discovered). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What Impy4ever stressed is that images issued between 1956 and 1991 are still PD under romanian law. JJ Georges (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The 10 years, if I am reading the law correctly, is not the actual copyright term for the photograph. There is still a 50 year copyright term put in Article 7 of that law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since most of the photographs concerned in this archive were already PD under the previous law (as they were older than the 5-10 years period) the prolongation of time period included in the new law does not apply. Hence if I read and interpret correctly, they still are PD, which is also what was stressed by several users on this page. JJ Georges (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The 10 years, if I am reading the law correctly, is not the actual copyright term for the photograph. There is still a 50 year copyright term put in Article 7 of that law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What Impy4ever stressed is that images issued between 1956 and 1991 are still PD under romanian law. JJ Georges (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Isolated photographs is standalone works. Template:PD-RO-photo gives out copyright terms for standalone (isolated) photos and photos that are part of a collection. Yet, when you look at that template, only those terms applies to images from 1956 to 1991. Several images that are part of this DR are before that time frame so I am trying to see what should be done or what even applies (if at all). Some are PD old since they are 70 years old and are a collective work (or the author is truly unknown or never discovered). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does "isolated photographs" means ? These are standalone works. JJ Georges (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the photos in this category are not from "isolated photographs issued between 1956 and 1991" so what do you suggest to do with those that do not fit that timeline? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly not so sure, so I hope we have users who speak Romanian that could clear this up. Plus I think each image needs to be looked at on their own (and also checked for the right information, since I found at least 2 that had the incorrect author information). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The freedom of those images has been confirmed with the people at the Romanian National Archives prior to starting uploading them. I found that email conversation I had with mr. Andrei Muraru from the Archives and forwarded it to OTRS, the ticket number is 2012020610003003; they are indeed free content, commercial use is allowed, so are derivative works, as long as the source is thoroughly specified. We can add the ticket number to the template if necessary.—Andrei S. Talk 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- ticket:2012020610003003 does not exist. Can you provide the correct ticket number so that I can check it. russavia (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the number. It exists, it's in the info-ro list.—Andrei S. Talk 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does exist, but I do not have permissions to see it. I'll go ahead and add the OTRS Template. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Andrei, you are right. I tried searching for it and it came back blank. From what I can understand the "permission" says that usage can be done, for any purpose, including commercial usage, so long as they are credited inline with what is on their website. The only other thing, do they explicitly allow for "derivative" works? Because "using" and "modifying" are separate concepts as we learnt with Russian Kremlin images. Also, does the museum explicitly assert copyright over the images held in their online colllection? I hate to make editors have to jump thru these hoops, but it is the standard for allowable permissions here on Commons, something that was learned with Russian images. russavia (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does exist, but I do not have permissions to see it. I'll go ahead and add the OTRS Template.
- Keep,per Impy4ever. --Olahus (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Impy4ever --Codrin.B (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep These pictures are totally legal and their have the Romanian National Archives license. --Rowley (talk) 20:51, 6 February
- Keep I think. It does appear as though the 1996 Romanian law was not retroactive (some confusion over that, but this document and some court cases seem to confirm the non-retroactivity), so anything which expired under the Communist-era law by 1996 would seem to be OK. They were a member of the Berne Convention from before the Communist era, and while their conformance with Berne with these terms seems pretty tenuous, they may have qualified under its grandfather clause to keep their shorter terms. Anyways, the law does seem fairly explicit. Shorter terms for photographs were very, very common. Am I correct that the 5 and 10 year terms start at publication of the photos, or is it creation? Google Translate works OK, but not great with the technical details of laws, and I've not seen an English translation of the 1956 decree. [As a side note, Romania's URAA date is the normal January 1, 1996, meaning that all of this stuff was not restored in the U.S. either.] Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The 1956 Decree uses the term "apariție" which can mean either appearance or publishing. It does not specifically mention the term "publicare" which would specifically require a publication. It's a tricky one here, "apariție" could have been the term used for publishing back then.--Mircea87 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, interesting. Some copyright laws distinguish "publication" and "communication to the public" (public exhibition and broadcasting are sometimes not considered "publication" but would be "communication to the public"); would that more seem to be the sense of the word? Sounds like it is not creation, at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- See also article 2: "the copyright takes effect from the moment the work has taken [...] any concrete form" (it's the last paragraph from the article.--Strainu (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's common, copyright exists from the moment of creation. The question though is how to calculate when it ends for photographs, which is a separate question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understood the relation between your response about publication and communication and what Mircea said - which is that the Romanian term "apariție" can mean either appearance (as in coming into existence - the Earth appeared 5 billion years ago) or publishing (as in the book appeared at Springer). I was merely pointing out the fact that the author can use its rights from the moment the work came into existence would suggest that the first meaning would apply.--Strainu (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily -- most all copyright laws say that copyright subsists from the moment of creation; that is standard under the Berne Convention. That really doesn't imply anything about the later article (and it seems they used a different word for "creation" there anyways). Things like broadcast over TV, or a museum display, are often not considered "publication", but are considered "communication to the public", particularly in the WIPO-style laws. "Appearance" could simply mean appearance to the public, without the stricter sense of "publication"... but there's not much I'm going to second guess about 1950s Romanian terminology ;-) It may be safer to use the term "appearance" and leave it undefined, but assume it means something closer to publication than creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understood the relation between your response about publication and communication and what Mircea said - which is that the Romanian term "apariție" can mean either appearance (as in coming into existence - the Earth appeared 5 billion years ago) or publishing (as in the book appeared at Springer). I was merely pointing out the fact that the author can use its rights from the moment the work came into existence would suggest that the first meaning would apply.--Strainu (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's common, copyright exists from the moment of creation. The question though is how to calculate when it ends for photographs, which is a separate question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- See also article 2: "the copyright takes effect from the moment the work has taken [...] any concrete form" (it's the last paragraph from the article.--Strainu (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, interesting. Some copyright laws distinguish "publication" and "communication to the public" (public exhibition and broadcasting are sometimes not considered "publication" but would be "communication to the public"); would that more seem to be the sense of the word? Sounds like it is not creation, at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Impy and the argument about retroactivity I made here, plus the explicit permission received from the National Archives.--Strainu (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: if the result of the discussion is keep, the {{PermissionOTRS}} template should be restored in {{FOCR}}, as it has been changed to {{OTRS received}}.
- The ticket's wording is clear: "[you] can use this photographic documents for any purposes, including commercial ones". It does not say anything about reproduction or any limitations whatsoever, except mentioning the source.
- I believe russavia's action to be hastly at best. While I understand that AGF does not apply to copyright issues, I fail to see how russavia's review of the ticket would suffice to confirm its correctness.--Strainu (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- My action was done as such because Zscout simply noted that there was a ticket, but has not verified it -- being that it is in Romanian. A Romanian speaker is required, and they will need to verify whether it allows for derivative works. Unless the ticket expressly allows for "derivative" works, it isn't suffice permission unfortunately, because "use" does not expressly imply derivatives. What is stopping any of the interested editors from contacting the organisation and getting them to sign an express release of these photos. Because as it stands now, none of the photos should be kept, in no small part due to the fact that there is no first date of publication with them. Their copyright status is not known. russavia (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- As Peter Kuiper said, you just loooooove shooting yourself in the leg. I don't know what deletionist English dialect you speak, in each "any use" doesn't include derivative works, but perhaps you should think again what "use" means. But FYI, Andrei has asked for an explicit confirmation from the Archive guys. Hopefully we will get that and end this circus.--Strainu (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- My action was done as such because Zscout simply noted that there was a ticket, but has not verified it -- being that it is in Romanian. A Romanian speaker is required, and they will need to verify whether it allows for derivative works. Unless the ticket expressly allows for "derivative" works, it isn't suffice permission unfortunately, because "use" does not expressly imply derivatives. What is stopping any of the interested editors from contacting the organisation and getting them to sign an express release of these photos. Because as it stands now, none of the photos should be kept, in no small part due to the fact that there is no first date of publication with them. Their copyright status is not known. russavia (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- To use the {{PD-RO-photo}} tag, we need to make sure that each photos was really published before 1986 (if it is part of a series of photos) or 1991 (if is a separate photo), not just taken before that date. If (before being published in 2008 by IICCR) the photos were held in an archive that was not accesible by the public, they do not seem published to me. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Răzvan, while in theory you are correct, I don't think your last phrase applies to this lot. According to the information on the website, the images come from the ISISP fund, which according to this, was a research institute for the history of communism in Romania, which had 2 reading rooms. This suggest that the photos could be consulted publicly. Even if it had no such rooms, I would say that the simple fact that the photos were used for research and documentation would suffice to consider they were publicly available (as opposed to available only to copyright owners). Furthermore, the archive was taken over in 1990 by the National Library, so at least isolated picture would be PD.
- The real reason we should not use {{PD-RO-photo}} is to protect our European reusers - which should also comply with the database owners' rights.--Strainu (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Impy and Andrei Stroe. Ionutzmovie (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The stipulations are very clear: use as you wish, but with proper citation of the source. I also said on the previous attempt to delete these pictures that I contacted them via email and they stated the exact same thing. Do we have to go through this endlessly? --
79.116.214.64 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[sorry, forgot to log on!] --Alex:D (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) - Delete as usual, Commons is shooting itself in the foot by keeping these. 24.146.227.20 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Impy4ever and Andrei Stroe — the images are in the public domain anyway; moreover, we have explicit permission to use them from the people who uploaded them to the photo archive. - Biruitorul (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Impy4ever and others
- Keep per Impy4ever and others; if there are any images 1989 (end of Communist Romania) or earlier which are not PD (highly unlikely), a request for attribution does not preclude free use (Can we close this and remove the 100's of deletion notifications?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs)
- Note for closing admin In addition to the initial argument, it has been suggested that these images may be {{PD-RO-photo}}. Under the terms of this law, Romanian artistic photographs whose protection term expired before 1996 are now in the public domain. These include photographic series published before 1986 and isolated photographs published before 1991. In relation to these photos, each individual photo is going to have to include evidence of it being published before 1991. To satisfy this requirement, evidence of publication for each photo is going to be required. As identified by Zscout above, some of these photos are from Soviet and Polish sources. Each photo is going to require individual review. The release from the website is not enough as it does not explicitly allow for derivative works (experience from the Russian example in the nomination). The OTRS permission is not suffice as it is, and I have noted this on the template. If anyone is able to give details on further correspondence with the website concerned, and whether any formal explicit permission is going to be given, that would be great. But unfortunately, as it stands now, each photo will need individual review for compliance with our policies. russavia (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There was some discussion on this -- it appears the word in the law is more "appearance" than "publication", so it may not be as stringent as the latter term often implies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- So it appears we are going to require an expert in Romanian copyright law to guide us as to the intricacies of the law, and how it relates to our policies. Would you agree? russavia (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- And failing that, make the most reasonable assumption we can. Also, the protection was for "artistic photos" apparently non-artistic photos did not get any protection at all (perhaps something akin to Switzerland), but of course, I'm not sure there is any guidance on that either. But given the short terms of protection, unless there is indication that something was not make public at the time, it may be reasonable to think it was made available at the time. Particularly given that the archival institution thinks they are OK to distribute (which is likely due to PD status). I really don't see the need for lots of hand-wringing over this. If there are individual files with some evidence they were not made available until after 1991, then perhaps bring that up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- So it appears we are going to require an expert in Romanian copyright law to guide us as to the intricacies of the law, and how it relates to our policies. Would you agree? russavia (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There was some discussion on this -- it appears the word in the law is more "appearance" than "publication", so it may not be as stringent as the latter term often implies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I have read over this, having been asked by Russavia. I concur that the website says people can use it for any purpose provided they are attributed in the correct manner. For me, modification is included in use, but I can see that there are arguments to be made against this, and apparently they have been before. What I propose is this: everyone who is either not a speaker of Romanian, or not an expert in Romanian copyright law, please be quiet. Let's get someone who can actually answer the issue rather than voicing uninformed opinions. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Matt, as it happens I would very much appreciate if somebody actually laid out explicitly the arguments against including modification into use. Right now the only argument I can imagine is that the licensor simply did nor realize what "use" implies, which is in no way the fault, or the problem, of the licensee.--Strainu (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The issue looks rather complex. I agree with the suggestion of Mattbuck above and that "Each photo is going to require individual review" whether it falls in the PD scope if it is decided that the OTRS permission does not suffice. GreyHood Talk 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I wonder if the pictures covered by {{FOCR}} can be found in the database covered by {{ComInRo}} which seem to clearly be free with attribution. @Matt, if you don't mind, if you want to silence Romanian speakers, please do silence Russian speakers as well as they also have a significant bias. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing {{ComInRo}} to our attention. Unfortunately, this is possibly going to affect all of those images as well, due to the same problems as is found with these images. First off, we need to ascertain the intricacies of Romanian copyright law. If these images are still possibly copyrighted, we then need to ascertain who the owners of said copyright are. In fact, looking at http://www.comunismulinromania.ro, it says "The copyright of the images from the site www.comunismulinromania.com remains unchanged meaning that all those photos can still be used online, privately or publically, the only condition being to specify the owner, which is The National History Museum of Romania." This is an analogous situation to Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites. The statement from that website is very much different to the statement on {{ComInRo}}. russavia (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you might be going too far with your assumptions and I am not sure from what page are you quoting from. I don't see that statement on the homepage. Can you point it out? The about the project page of http://www.comunismulinromania.ro clearly states in CC-BY-SA fashion (black and white, literally!): "Conditions for the image use: -uploaded images can be used provided the source (www.comunismulinromania.ro/) is mentioned." (Romanian: "Condiţii de folosire a imaginilor: -imaginile încărcate pe site pot fi folosite cu condiţia menţionării sursei (www.comunismulinromania.ro/).". Which is exactly what the {{ComInRo}} does. The owner is the National History Museum of Romania (as mentioned on the same "about" page) who makes all images available publicly with the condition of the attribution, per the mentioned phrase.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- How long is this joke going to continue ? The romanian law has been examined. The people at the Romanian National Archives confirmed that the use of these images are permitted. Practically everybody has voted to keep them. Are we going to keep - excuse the vulgarity - making asses of ourselves ? There is no reason whatsoever to delete these priceless images - and I'm not saying this because they are priceless, but because the present debate is just plain useless. I suggest we put and end to it and keep them all. JJ Georges (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I insist as I'd really like to know : how long is this going to go on ? JJ Georges (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- How long is this joke going to continue ? The romanian law has been examined. The people at the Romanian National Archives confirmed that the use of these images are permitted. Practically everybody has voted to keep them. Are we going to keep - excuse the vulgarity - making asses of ourselves ? There is no reason whatsoever to delete these priceless images - and I'm not saying this because they are priceless, but because the present debate is just plain useless. I suggest we put and end to it and keep them all. JJ Georges (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you might be going too far with your assumptions and I am not sure from what page are you quoting from. I don't see that statement on the homepage. Can you point it out? The about the project page of http://www.comunismulinromania.ro clearly states in CC-BY-SA fashion (black and white, literally!): "Conditions for the image use: -uploaded images can be used provided the source (www.comunismulinromania.ro/) is mentioned." (Romanian: "Condiţii de folosire a imaginilor: -imaginile încărcate pe site pot fi folosite cu condiţia menţionării sursei (www.comunismulinromania.ro/).". Which is exactly what the {{ComInRo}} does. The owner is the National History Museum of Romania (as mentioned on the same "about" page) who makes all images available publicly with the condition of the attribution, per the mentioned phrase.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per all arguments - Fredy.00 19:35
- Firstly, these discussions are not a vote. They are discussions based upon policy -- copyright policy is imperative here, and there is enough information which doubts whether these images are free or not. I am striking your "attempt" at "voting" because you have done this already back in February. russavia (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Russavia, we're all still waiting for you to show us those informations. All we've seen from you this far are unrealistic interpretations of a language you don't speak.--Strainu (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- This thing has been going on for over one month, and nobody seems to agree with Russavia, who apparently does not have the requisite knowledge of romanian, and has not submitted any substantial informations. Couldn't we just put an end to this and keep the photos ? This seems to be a waste of time. Who is supposed to close the request ? JJ Georges (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Our Russian theme Artur Pirojkov (talk) 20:16, 05 June 2012 (UTC)
- This thing has been going on for over one month, and nobody seems to agree with Russavia, who apparently does not have the requisite knowledge of romanian, and has not submitted any substantial informations. Couldn't we just put an end to this and keep the photos ? This seems to be a waste of time. Who is supposed to close the request ? JJ Georges (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Russavia, we're all still waiting for you to show us those informations. All we've seen from you this far are unrealistic interpretations of a language you don't speak.--Strainu (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
WE EXPECT THE DECISION. 194.102.180.186 06:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I too agree with keeping, acording to lawsuit of Romania and status of sourcepage.
Kept: Per incontrovertible consensus. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
poor quality of the picture. In the same category there are plenty sharper images, of both indoor and wild speciments. Japs 88 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This may be useful to document the rumor, if we get the source right and the license right. Yann (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This image is a well-known hoax. The shadows show the light on the monolith comes from about 7 o'clock, while the shadows in the craters show light coming form 9 or 10 o'clock. There are valid pictures of a monolith/boulder on Phobos, but it is more triangular, less Kubrick-like. Whaledad (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Being an hoax, is not a sufficient reason for deletion IMO. That's what I mean above: this image could be useful to document the hoax. The issue is: is it from NASA? Yann (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Being photoshopped as a hoax, it will be practically impossible to find the source. Nobody will fess up. Thje rest of the image is more than likely a fragment of a Nasa picture. It may be virtually impossible to track back which picture and which fragment. Whaledad (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Being an hoax, is not a sufficient reason for deletion IMO. That's what I mean above: this image could be useful to document the hoax. The issue is: is it from NASA? Yann (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rename It seems to be a crop from this, but its on the Mars surface not Phobos. Fotaun (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and rename - a version of the photograph appears in the Telegraph and is credited to NASA in that newspaper. With corrected information, this appears within scope. I also fail to see any obvious photoshopping apart from cropping. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is a classic case of pareidolia. The image is a crop of the original NASA image, and the hoax lies solely in its interpretation. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oversized Duplicate of File:Bandeira - Gov - MG.svg OAlexander (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think this version is better than the older one. Tonyjeff (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. If necessary/appropriate, upload a this file as "Bandeira - Gov - MG.svg" them rename it. But it's not necessary to keep 2 svg flags slightly different. And the same for File:Flag Governors of Rio Grande do Sul.svg. Giro720 (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As duplicate file. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded under a fair use claim. I would consider the advertisement to be de minimis, because the main subject is the text written on the sign. The text is clearly ineligible for copyright. /á(!) 14:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Really when I took the picture I thought the graffiti, PSDB Assassino (PSDB murderer) since in my city, Belo Horizonte, there are several graffiti with political connotations. I even use the picture to illustrate the article about the party Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira didn't get to think of the propaganda that was behind. Best regards -- Andrevruas (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is true that the subject here is the text not the sign. Nevertheless, the sign is very prominent, filling the entire image, and I feel uncomfortable declaring de minimis here. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The image infringes on the copyright of the banner. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If there is a copyright, it's owned by the city of Union City, New Jersey. Since it's owned by a government body, doesn't that mean it's in the public domain? Nightscream (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is certainly a copyright -- there is a copyright in virtually every creative work. It may be held by the designer of the banner, or, if he executed a work for hire agreement, then it is owned by the city.
- In general, only works made by employees of the Federal government and a few states (not New Jersey) are in the public domain. Even works made by contractors -- not employees -- of the Federal government are not PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Question What about {{PD-text}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that PD text says that Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.. This contains a slogan which would be unlikely to be called original information, the i in Union City is also creative and a clear element of design. All in all, I feel it has passed the threshold. Delete for that reason. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The original template is being discussed for it not being free enough for Commons: this image is not 70 years old in Europe and the photographer is identified (not sure when he died) and it is not eligible for PD-Russia-2008 nor http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-RO-photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from the Romanian Communism Online Photo Collection. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is on a Romanian Archive, but is this photographer Romanian is the main question. If it is a Soviet Work, then we cannot host it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have textual/written evidence explicitly indicating that this file is free, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Christopher_Bryden (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:McSooty & Friends Xmas Short 2013 Characters TBD.png
- File:McSooty & Friends Xmas Short 2012 Characters TBD.png
Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Christopher_Bryden (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:The Stupid Snowman.JPG
- File:The Retarded Snowman.JPG
- File:The Happy Snowman.JPG
- File:Big White Bear.JPG
- File:Stupid Cat.png
- File:McSooty.jpg
Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Very ordinary teddy bears, no originality. For the copyright to exist, you have to prove that these toys are derivative of a copyrighted character. Yann (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- ?! According to which law? And I'm worried about your eyesight or your taxonomy skills: 3 of these are snowmen, one is a cat; that's original, for a bear. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I mean stuffed toys obviously. And I'm worried that your eyesight on Commons' current practice is deficient: Category:Stuffed animals. Yann (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, other stuff exists, so what? Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I mean stuffed toys obviously. And I'm worried that your eyesight on Commons' current practice is deficient: Category:Stuffed animals. Yann (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- ?! According to which law? And I'm worried about your eyesight or your taxonomy skills: 3 of these are snowmen, one is a cat; that's original, for a bear. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 09:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Another cock shot? Really? Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep High quality image with good description, educationally useful. Does not fit into COM:PORN. This is really a photograph of a penis. One thing that i am concerned about is the fact that it's without any metadata, i will politely ask the uploader to rectify that with OTRS. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just one more anonymous penis that doesn't stand out (pardon the pun) from the veritable plethora of other anonymous penis shots. How many is enough? And haven't we reached that point yet? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- The analogy of a penis (as was pointed out in previous sex-related deletion requests) in the plant kingdom would be something like a flower. I have just checked, there 1074 photos in Flowers (not including subcategories), there are 156 photos in Human penis. To be fair a flower should be compared to the union of both penis and vagina, so let's say that when there will be 537 images in penis we reopen this discussion to see if it's too much. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 15:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- A faulty analogy to be sure. How many species/genus of flowers do we have compared to species of penis? All we really need is one per ethnic variant, in states: not angry, slightly angry and very angry. Circumcised, uncircumcised. And maybe a few extra to show medical conditions specifically related to the penis. There ya go, a couple of hundred max. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There are only 100 pictures in Category:Stamens which is the flower equivalence of Category:Human penis. You should compare Category:Flowers (i.e. unidentified flowers) with Category:Men and Category:Women (i.e. unidentified human beings) instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just one more anonymous penis that doesn't stand out (pardon the pun) from the veritable plethora of other anonymous penis shots. How many is enough? And haven't we reached that point yet? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and image quality is OK. Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Probably copyright violation if we look at other uploads by this user they are all different people different types of shots, and all without any metadata. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC) VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Beta M's research appears to be incorrect. All user's uploads were taken with a Sony DSC-N2, except one taken with DSC-R1 and a few with no EXIF. All photos appear to depict the same man and the same penis, most likely that of the uploader. No reason to believe there is copyvio here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Replaceable and low quality pornographic content Econt (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - kept twice, no new arguments raised. Image may not be high resolution but it's sharp and well-lit. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept as before. --Krd 16:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)