Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The licensing information is certainly false. In 1923, was polychromatic photographic technique already in use? Lovysinghal (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry of File:Aryan shiva ravi.jpg, looks like copied from website www.gilatta.com as can be seen from watermarks, might not be free. Lovysinghal (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The licensing information is certainly false. In 1923, was polychromatic photographic technique already in use? Lovysinghal (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry of File:Aryan shiva ravi.jpg, looks like copied from website www.gilatta.com as can be seen from watermarks, might not be free. Lovysinghal (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Out of copyright books which are candidates for transcription to Wikisource, as well as out of copyright books which have illustrations which we may use, in this case on en:May Queen or articles on Tennyson himself, are clearly in scope russavia (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, within scope. cygnis insignis 11:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep as other DRs you've started. We keep out of copyright books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The djvu version is in use File:The prophetic books of William Blake, Milton.djvu -- it is clearly within scope, and there is no reason we can't have pdf and djvu versions of same file . russavia (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, scans of public domain publications are most definitely in scope and useful at Wikisource. 110.174.224.43 12:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
Kept: As per the IP -- it is correct russavia (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional material - not within scope, and probable copyvio too russavia (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Strategic_Implications_for_the_United_states_and_Latin_America_of_the_1995_Ecuador-Peru_War.pdf
[edit]Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope, can be transcribed to Commons as a PD work, and can likely be used on WP as a reference point too russavia (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Bad licence - Flickr is an unacceptable CC-by-nc-nd No indication that this is an old image with an acceptable past licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This (contrast-enhanced) version probably already violates the NC+ND terms of the original at http://www.flickr.com/photos/horrgakx/4892123224/in/photostream/. Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, I suspect that it may have been taken from an outside website with its background retouched. Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sam Szafran is alive. Not in Public Domain. 82.124.26.173 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work Denniss (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Edited non free image Ileana n (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyvio, screenshot of a mobile phone - used on ru:Symbian OS Trijnstel (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: no valid EXIF information and typical low web resolution High Contrast (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as clearly not own work, see http://www.google.de/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiugesUpjSw10bbOILDr90Rdgj3CNBZeaW2NhNn5ju219UR_1HQ7xEuCq3S7Q798t18Eacbwkidy-VVB0Ub8TbjDJ5V9pTRqIC42EMzm8_1QDFqTiojnP0shGjAMSX6KPDnB-6-w1iRjHmkb-UTnmPzILL8uhnZmvAERv15Vkk--41W1XkaHnoaWeGW7v0nCpVxfyEgVlGZExqrlCtXKNZa1kSTMGymPAds0rDVwcRq6VhqdCsHsscqcQ5hy3KugT_1CNyHm4jrQDKI8IeeXSzE3hnwBGWPECh9YtfA6voGJM8XIOa3JHZ91zIBOFXbxjly2RYXF4Mgs6LoRYSViISTPahLHfXKxmOTUQcgdXJiy0eRESFvhss7IeTHfxSa-qyLRd2rbk16sbTJfUShTF2UPI0L3j_1QT8bVuKMfTDlAiarFVTytx8FVMeSbyc0ES9FDZDql9MtzgZUs4beqn4QESK2QMDIQMp954mulrdbpmSU5mnetlHOP4SYKFlE3FiL8x4YxehN41BBexp2DkOK9jm9Y4OF2tR2sKmuXQr7iIY_1eJ-uyU9OsFPBY7CNgwQ94-de5A6G9UPwXFHlsjqKc6MYLE0izIjEUxprBEavSYsuJH3sc2ESMQM2opT7e-oU1-Go1cwva1TjCvluZbnTsxP0hNo5CMs463REBTNm1UwUR9G_1yf8Zy41tAVYUJRpp2SkqsdiBHjTs-Rd3F49FnsnQjjPby689TlADb6-DsRCsPQ8pNPz1Nl_1B_15mgpeE2I6zAY9tn-TxIyqr-7oEZzItJqJMbOqLzFq1vJz0ykCYLGsNRC5-xZ-tUx5ygUdS_1Uyu3rfrWiHy993cU5Lt4B8D4Bc703TUWHTiRdMCpLS_1KELoqdwrB_1pXeXm5dl3E4IuqT24dSsAmgiW3km6PBQekYUD-ME7tErvQNxMg5FWPjk7615k6acs5eMEcxG18aUykhOGRSVL0LuyV_1KGCgUHy68Hcj4a-l_1on7lsGlTsOgV2Ygj4aAFwBUdyPxLn_1lOry4ZD5OUspcEYXxxZk1ICnE9O117PKPuvrzQgKAIaaT6gxw0ajxLt5ZnesutY92v76cJV3FBqqqR-w5APrDB9QlrWHmbFu4DkR8sjALJVyhh42IBqYCVK1Bd9stm9IIXXJ91TEswSvLAuBXTqNOkne_1DKwI1CmxMBOsK3LIPptgJGwYHa4tSURsBMup15kBhj6al_1MFHvxf5l9X1OFmgvRlL9IgkGHz907SvMWchx-HqqWmsP-HwiITISdFYh4IcS0-w9Qt9CZEqLgjAAC32tgsdAfL5bfgXSb7ix7m9SP43zweotX3JKBfSkDx0zIoZXJSR2bNv&num=10&hl=de&safe=off&bih=959&biw=1280 Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This file is no more used in any page 84.102.70.155 12:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, not uploader's work, image grabbed from the internet. ■ MMXX talk 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; (also not really own work, but the time zone map is PD, compare File:Standard time zones of the world.png). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete it - OK by me. For other time zones, I saw such figures modified for the User's own time zone and done well. I searched for a -6 image and did not find one. Are all of those other images going to be deleted, too? Just do a search; there is a bunch of them. Doug youvan (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader said go ahead. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, found on various websites, like [1] Funfood ␌ 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot/capture from TV or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Orsini Yann (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Orsini Yann (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep As per Commons:Project_scope#Scope_of_Commons, files consisting of scans of out-of-copyright books, newspapers and the like which preserve original font, layout, embedded images and the like are within scope. russavia (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of this specific book for a Wikimedia-project? We are not a mirror of Google Books, are we? Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We keep out-of-copyright books for Wikisource and the like. We no more need to justify this then an upload of a painting by a famous artist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dubious licensing, small file in web resolution Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Licence may be wrong one, I uploaded it years ago when I was just beginner. Link is dead because of ministry of defence modernisation of webpage. I will repair the licencing (it is logo owned by ministry of defence and hence public domain) and the source link in following days. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
bad quality, no location, no date, no EXIF Cqdx (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. The site reserves all rights. Lovysinghal (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - Not educationally useful Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 20:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eh... not sure. Yes, a photo of random people, normally not allowable, but... this can demonstrate dress and styles of the era, and it's a period for which free photographs are going to be a lot fewer, by a professional photographer, and it's of high resolution (even rarer), and it is from the government DOCUMERICA program which was intended to capture images of everyday life (among other things) in the 1970s. I'll go for Keep, since if we are going to have any photographs like this -- and I think we need some -- something like this would be the best ones to keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you put it this way =>
I withdraw my nomination :) --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Licensing info is rubbish. 178.1.214.194 21:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not blurry and not unused. it is a bit in high detail (Nabulus gate and the square of the pillar). Used in Hebrew wikipedia - therefore, useful and in scope. Deror avi (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Diego Giacometti died in 1985. Not in the Public Domain. 82.124.26.173 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Diego Giacometti died in 1985. Not in the Public Domain. 82.124.26.173 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sam Szafran is alive. Not in Public Domain. 82.124.26.173 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sam Szafran is alive. Not in Public Domain. 82.124.26.173 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
possible copyright violation. please investigate: [2] Japs 88 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
this is obviously a collage of multiple elements whose copyright status is unknown DS (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work by uploader (small res., missing EXIF). Presumably a TV screenshot or a promo pic. A.Savin 13:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a movie screenshot, unlikely own photo by uploader. A.Savin 13:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful copyright status: the watermark in the lower right corner of the image credits a certain A. Mikhalev as photograph. No infos on permission given. Unlikely own work by uploader. A.Savin 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. The site reserves all rights as marked in the footer. Lovysinghal (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Low resolution, no EXIF data - typical signs of copying from a website (where it is downscaled on purpose); there is a timestamp on the linked website which is earlier than the Commons upload. Materialscientist (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused and rather unusable picture due to being blurry/out of focus and of low resolution (200x190 pix). Enough replacements in Category:Leaked electric batteries. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The license at source is OK for Commons, but this is a derivative work and there is no proof that the flickr user holds rights to all the images used in this college Sreejith K (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yo como usuario busca encontrar un modo de respaldar la información de un cierto articulo para ayudar a proporcionar una imagen a la gente sin propositos de violar ningun derecho.--Jgeovani (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above comment translated to English using Google Translate - I as a user seeks to find a way to support the information of a certain article to help provide a picture to people without violating any rights purposes.--Sreejith K (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously Flickr washing. Moreover, file name suggests that it was pulled from Tumblr Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
nonsense in particular in combination with the only other contribution of the user Wouter (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete source/description for image. "Actomagnesium" is obviously not a real element... --AlphaEta (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
unused and with evident compression artifacts. Japs 88 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - PD-USGov does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dubious " I, the copyright holder of this work" Bulwersator (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - needs clear permission by Vitaly Gorbenko. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" Bulwersator (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[3] [4]; "RE COMPLAINT, I WISH THIS PHOTO TO BE REMOVED! IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! IT ALSO SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE MY HORSES ARE KEPT AND HOW TO POTENTIALLY STEAL OR INJUIRE THEM, ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN PURPOSEFULLY INJURED! REMOVE IMMEDIATELY!" End quote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not stunningly impressed by the arguments given by the IP linked and quoted above. There's nothing really private in the photo; it hardly shows exactly where the horses are kept, nor shows anything that can't be seen by a casual passerby, much less someone with malicious intent. On the other hand, it's not in use, nor is it hard to replace.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral, too, but note that the image is geocoded. It also appears to have been removed at the source (geograph.org.uk). Lupo 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Per above. We could remove the geolocation info at least, though the IP hasn't really done anything to back up their claim. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless more convincing arguments are put forth. As a matter of principle, we generally don't remove photos simply because some person of unconfirmed identity SHOUTS!!!!!! at us to do so, and doing so would set a bad precedence. Generally, there's no legal requirement to ask for permission to take photos of outdoor scenery including animals. By posting the photo to Geograph, the photographer did give permission to redistribute it, which is really the only permission we need. I also sincerely doubt that the hosting of this photo, with or without geographical coordinates, poses any threat to the horses. The idea that someone would browse Commons for horse photos, enter the coordinates of said photos into their GPS, and then travel to that location just to satisfy some urge to harm innocent animals seems, well, let's say far-fetched. Any low-life that would do that probably can't even spell GPS. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Resolution is so awful you can barely tell what breed the horses are. Yet some educational use may exist, e.g. for depicting a horse farm in this geographical region, so I am reluctant to call for out-of-scope deletion. While I sympathise with the original poster's plight, I can assure them that whatever injury their horse has sustained was almost certainly not a consequence of the availability of this photo. There are many similar photos of famous horses throughout the world who are doing just fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not a particularly valuable photo, probably might as well remove as a courtesy. However, I'll emphatically state that we have absolutely no legal responsibility to do so. Photos like this - including geocoding - are absolutely routine, and the tone of the request is way out of line. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also add that I find the suggestion that someone looked through Wikipedia or the Commons for the geolocation of a horse to go out and deliberately injure the horse rather bizarre. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per LX. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weak delete I would say courtesy delete because of very low resolution and because its very easy to replace. Amada44 talk to me 10:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There is no evidence of any law being broken in the taking of this photo, nor is there any issue with copyright of the photo. Although not currently used, it is somewhat in scope as mentioned above. russavia (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
First nomination 24 August 2011 − kept
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not simple shapes. // Sertion 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No copyrighted file who is used in several pages. Béria Lima msg 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
Second nomination 6 February 2012 − kept
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The Facebook Like botton is copyrighted by Facebook and we cannot use it without their permission. As per their licensing statements, they grant usage rights only to specific applications, reuse for other purposes is not allowed. Also, this is not a "simple" geometric shape, as mentioned in Common's description, but an artwork. Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Portions below have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Portions above have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined.
Kept: Too simple to be eligible for copyright, also a case of prior art (Facebook didn't design the thumb nor the hand). --Denniss (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_schräg.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.aventuraxtrema.com.py/galeria/G_BC13.jpg){kind=link}
- Facebook thumbs (third nomination)
- File:Facebook_like_thumb.png
- File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png
- File:Botón Me gusta.svg
- File:Facebook-like-button.png
These three four files are a clear imitation of Facebook's 'like' thumb. It is not simply a matter of asserting "simple graphics − ineligible for copyright". First, they arent that simple, second there is also the issue of choice of colors, four (or is it five?) nuances of blue that, again, is a clear attempt to give it the "Facebook look". When I add to this the way it is implemented on several templates on the English-language Wikipedia, see e.g. w:Template:Like, the plagiarizing becomes, at least to me, ostentatious and blatant. Others may want to confirm that this practice is ubiquitous across the projects that transclude these files by following the inter-language links on that template..
I suppose it could be argued that the infringement doesn't start until the transcluding templates employ the images, adding amplifying effect to recreate the Facebook feel, but I would argue that even these images themselves, no matter how few pixels they have, are the core of the problem.
This is the third nomination of the first file, second for the second file (and first for the third file, which is a vector version of the first, + the fourth). The first nomination, in June 2011, didn't even discuss the copyright issue. In the second, in February 2012, the opinions were clearly divided, but the discussion was not as extensive as it could have been. Thus this re-nomination. __meco (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (Fourth file added to nomination. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
- Keep - The arguments for deletion two months ago were bogus, and they still are. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - this appears to be an exact copy of the Facebook like thumb from the page background, e.g. https://s-static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v1/yr/r/UoiWcNiokdd.png . (As displayed on the page it has a faint blue background which is absent here, I think, due to transparent pixels) There are several spots where the line zigzags via intermediate-value pixels, and these are exactly the same in this image. I don't know what the minimum number of pixels to be copyrightable is, but this is an exact copy of a 13x12 area. With it labelled as "Facebook like thumb" and used to appropriate what might be called valuable Facebook IP, i.e. the Like function, to Wikipedia ... I think this might not be a good idea. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks ok to me. I don't want this image to be Deleted from WMC. 189.70.92.232 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous times these images were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, the images that were nominated for deletion by Meco here on Wikimedia Commons do not even appear to be the same images nominated on Wikipedia. What gives with that? How can we have a "centralized discussion" when we are discussing two different sets of images? Procedurally, how does this "centralized discussion" work? How can a WikiCommons TfD be binding upon a different image in a separate TfD on Wikipedia? And contrary to the assertion above by the nominator, the copyright rationale has been repeatedly addressed on both Wikipedia and WikiCommons, but the nominator glosses over that fact by saying that this "rationale is a different." I am prepared to call this a "bad faith" nomination, an obvious attempt at forum shopping to achieve a different TfD result, and a violation of the previous consensus that was reaffirmed only two months ago on
WikipediaWikimedia Commons TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all three, as well as the derivative File:Facebook-like-button.png. Although the concept of "thumbs-up" as a sign for liking something is not copyrightable, a particular representation of that idea is. Prior discussions seem to have focused (wrongly) on the small size of the image, but I think size (resolution) is only relevant if you're considering a fair-use claim, which is out of the question here at Commons. Our question should be whether the image is suitably original to garner copyright protection (I think probably) and if so, whether these images are similar enough to the one used by Facebook to infringe (definitely). cmadler (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm. Not exactly. Size is relevant to the idea of whether something is creative enough to be copyrightable. (I can use italics, too!) I don't see "infringement" as a particularly compelling argument, otherwise we wouldn't have these (and all the rest in their respective categories). Also, lol @ "similar enough to the one used by Facebook". It's sourced to Facebook! Killiondude (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added that one to the nomination also, no reason to leave it out of the discussion. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The rationale that these images are too small to attract copyright is not just doubtful, but raises significant doubt. Per Threshold of originality, there is no minimal pixel size defined for the threshold, these icons are immediately recognizable, they are not simple geometry, and there is no doubt that there was significant creative talent in their original production. It remains my opinion that these should be removed per precautionary principle until someone confirms the status of these images with Facebook or has more appropriate advice from a credible council that can extend our definitions under the current threshold of originality casebook. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we're being all pseudo-lawyerly: all of this is easily refuted with the phrase "prior art". The icons that facebook uses are not original art.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)- Could you point out the priors and explain where they touched a progenitor nature? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- They've tried, and failed, to trademark the whole button in several states, but I've never seen anything in a reliable source about a copyright, especially not of the thumb itself. A hand with a thumbs up is a very common image, and is widely used (YouTube uses it, for example), so I can't see how Facebook could possibly succeed in establishing an enforceable copyright over it. They don't appear to claim copyright over it anyway (their having enough trouble getting "face" and "book" copyrighted anyway), so this all seems rather unnecessary. Let's address this when there's anything more then a suspicion that there might be a problem.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)- I'm not aware of this failed copyrighting background, possibly as I don't live in the USA. Could you point to somewhere I can read about it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ohms law: the concept of the thumbs-up as a symbol for liking something is not copyrightable, but a particular image to represent it is. That's why, although YouTube also uses the thumbs-up to indicate that a user likes a video, it is not the same thumbs-up image used by Facebook. We can also host any number of thumbs-up images here, as long as they are not the same as those used elsewhere. cmadler (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the reason(s) why YouTube chose the icon they chose is neither here nor there. And we can host any number of thumbs-up images here as long as they are free. We happen to have a lot of content used elsewhere! Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I would still like to see some evidence of Facebook attempting to copyright this image and failing, in order to help make a determination if there is significant doubt here or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you read Ohms' post again you'll see he made no claim about attempts to copyright the image but rather trademarking it. [7] (rather old article) They're also trying to trademark uses of the word "face" and "book" (and it seems they've gotten "face"). [8] In all, trademark doesn't really matter in the context of whether it can be kept on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- They've tried, and failed, to trademark the whole button in several states, but I've never seen anything in a reliable source about a copyright, especially not of the thumb itself. A hand with a thumbs up is a very common image, and is widely used (YouTube uses it, for example), so I can't see how Facebook could possibly succeed in establishing an enforceable copyright over it. They don't appear to claim copyright over it anyway (their having enough trouble getting "face" and "book" copyrighted anyway), so this all seems rather unnecessary. Let's address this when there's anything more then a suspicion that there might be a problem.
- Could you point out the priors and explain where they touched a progenitor nature? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we're being all pseudo-lawyerly: all of this is easily refuted with the phrase "prior art". The icons that facebook uses are not original art.
- Keep I find User:Killiondude and User:MZMcBride's arguments from the previous deletion request compelling. 28bytes (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - unless someone can show that Facebook successfully registered this at the Copyright Office. But I believe that registration would be denied as not sufficiently original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - For the same reasons that Peter Kuiper mentioned. --Varnent (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - For the reasons I did in the last two discussions above. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:TOO Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Per the preceding five votes. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Sorry, but I don't get this stuff about the icon not being original enough. The particular thumbs-up icon that Facebook uses for their Like button is distinctively recognizable as the Facebook Like icon to probably anyone who knows what the Facebook Like button looks like, and with Facebook being so common these days, that probably means a lot of people. The thumbs-up sign may be a generic concept, but I don't see why different representations of it (such as different thumbs-up icons on the Internet, including the Facebook one) could not be copyrighted. I strongly second what Matthiaspaul and Nyttend said in the closed second nomination.
- I also support being safe rather than sorry: if we need to have a "Like" (and/or "Dislike") template around, then let's create our own thumbs-up and thumbs-down symbols and make the Like/Dislike templates a little different looking. There is nothing that I am aware of that says we have to ripoff Facebook's Like button, right down to using the exact Facebook thumbs-up image, copied from Facebook's servers.
- Keep per the above keep votes. benzband (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept no new arguments of value have been brought up. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png as they are essentially the same. Killiondude (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
giving that all(?) other files of this user are already deleted it is save to assume that this one also is a copyvio. License/Source missing, too. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 20:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention: Unlikely to be own work. Unless the uploader is JRR Tolkien. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Recording of JRRT must be copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
from source "Copyright © 1997 by Masayuki Suzuki (Japan)" Bulwersator (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyright violation Cambalachero (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader was tthis person, who is sadly now deceased as of Feb 4th. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Apparent copyright issue per nom; also, apparently uploaded by a role account. Not sure if that is prohibited on Commons or not (it is on English Wikipedia). -Pete F (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure either. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think perhaps the best thing would be a suggestion to the uploader to use OTRS if they truly represent Doughty Hanson & Co.?
- Considered the uploader (judging by his username) is deceased and was the only upload, I agree OTRS is the way to go. Plus, I am an agent so I can check on the emails and stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think perhaps the best thing would be a suggestion to the uploader to use OTRS if they truly represent Doughty Hanson & Co.?
- I am not sure either. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- In COM:SCOPE, pd work Gnangarra 12:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Broken file Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I disagree strongly with the nomination, this lesson plan with specific educational objectives etc. seems very much within the scope of what Commons is intended for. However, I am not entirely sure if this is available under a free license. The page it links as a reference is here; it has a © mark, but I know that Utah's educational system has lots of free licensing/OER, so it could be it has been explicitly released elsewhere. Not sure what the best course of action is. -Pete F (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - contains many instructive photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, candidate for Wikisource transcription. Suggest that the nominator more closely examine the scope of this project before making future nominations of this type. 110.174.224.43 11:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
- Ices2Csharp, please explain why you consider this document to be out-of-scope. In particular, please cite the specific Commons policy(-ies) you used to justify this DR. Thank you.Cvieg (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Outside project scope. This is a promotional logo seemingly uploaded simply to add a WP:ELNO forum link to en:Maryport Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Refering to [9] it is a movie screenshot; unlikely own work by uploader. A.Savin 12:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a magazine, unlikely own work by uploader. A.Savin 13:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
probably not own work. see many hits with Google image search. Description not right; see http://www.chemical-engineering.co/2011/09/28/lead-alkali-metals/. Only two contributions of user of which one is probably fantasy Wouter (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As per nomination. Precautionary delete unless "own work" claim an be confirmed. --AlphaEta (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This map is not own work, scanned from somewhere. Geograph.co.uk is not the original source of the work. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, the description seems to say that this is a photograph of a sign. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of map Nilfanion (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per request, file has been transferred to frwp. Coyau (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Iljunction-adumim2.PNG superceded by ILjunction-adumim.png.
Furthermore, no page currently links to ILjunction-adumim2.PNG
Atefrat (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. File:ILjunction-adumim.png -- Common Good (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly infringement of privacy. The page nl:Freddy Lazzús Morales has been nominated for speedy deletion due to lack of notability or hoax. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Lazz%C3%BAs_Morales 213.10.17.29 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- More likely a copyvio, as it is sourced to "revista HOLA!" and an author whose name differs from uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Falls out of scope being of some guy with a Facebook page but no other explanation. Given the dubious past usage, the uploader would need to provide a clear explanation of why this might be in scope. I find no matches on TinEye and nothing obvious by a quick Google search, so I doubt this is a sustained internet hoax or a well known photo of a celebrity. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This map doesn't look like it's own work - it looks scanned/photographed (see the blurring to the left hand side of the image). No source information given. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Jean Effel, the cartoonist, died in 1982. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as several other very similar images of footballers uploaded by Azon789 were copyright Imago Sportfotodienst and have been nominated for speedy deletion. ErikvanB (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as several other very similar images of footballers uploaded by Azon789 were copyright Imago Sportfotodienst and have been nominated for speedy deletion. ErikvanB (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as several other very similar images of footballers uploaded by Azon789 were copyright Imago Sportfotodienst and have been nominated for speedy deletion. ErikvanB (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Pure text, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Likely license laundering by the flickr user High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in Italy 134.176.192.22 02:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This seems to have been uploaded purely for the purpose of calling Cad Delworth a "Champion Tosser" (an insult) on the English Wikipedia (see the history of en:Dwarf tossing. It is certainly the case that there is no connection between Delworth's name and the supposed sport of dwarf tossing. Moreover, the claim that this image is not under copyright seems suspicious. Several Pending (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Outsie project scope, no conceivable educational use. Was used for vandalism on en-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The photo illustration was created for the purpose of conveying a graphic representation of Christian privilege; It is not vandalism. The image is of a man bound with the Christian flag, and its educational use lies in the image's ability to convey how Christian privilege can subjugate non-Christians. Request to retain image and restore it to the page on Christian privilege. User talk: prozim, 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Free image, in scope due to its potential use to show a very important subject. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- What "subject" would it "show"? It could never be used on Wikipedia for the intended purpose, because the way it attempts to symbolically represent its creator's view of the topic would always be irredeemably "original research" and tendentious opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have said it before and i say it again. This is not Wikipedia! There are other projects without no OR policy which are educational which can use it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What "subject" would it "show"? It could never be used on Wikipedia for the intended purpose, because the way it attempts to symbolically represent its creator's view of the topic would always be irredeemably "original research" and tendentious opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We allow original research, but not original art from non-notable contributors. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, 3sat HD doesn't exist at all. 84.61.139.62 14:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- But it will in May according to the German Wikipedia article. Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- But this logo is not the official logo (which has not been published yet). It's just a fake. Delete --LuWe (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know that. The uploader could have gotten it from a press release. Unless you have proof otherwise, it's still a Keep Fry1989 eh? 21:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader created some more logos together with this one (uploaded on the German Wikipedia). Two of them have now been officially released and - surprise - proved him wrong. --LuWe (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- So? If the logo turns out to be different, we can upload over. Fry1989 eh? 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I had thought at first as well. But what made me request the deletion was that after the "fake logos" were posted in de:Liste deutschsprachiger Fernsehsender, speculations started in lots of German internet platforms. Wikipedia would lose parts of its reliability if there are fake logos in its articles. That is at least my opinion... So therefore still Delete --LuWe (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I had thought at first as well. But what made me request the deletion was that after the "fake logos" were posted in de:Liste deutschsprachiger Fernsehsender, speculations started in lots of German internet platforms. Wikipedia would lose parts of its reliability if there are fake logos in its articles. That is at least my opinion... So therefore still
- So? If the logo turns out to be different, we can upload over. Fry1989 eh? 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader created some more logos together with this one (uploaded on the German Wikipedia). Two of them have now been officially released and - surprise - proved him wrong. --LuWe (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know that. The uploader could have gotten it from a press release. Unless you have proof otherwise, it's still a
- But this logo is not the official logo (which has not been published yet). It's just a fake.
The official logo has been published yesterday. At least now
- Delete by author --Infanf (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have a plausible claim of PD-USGov but any sources I could find read "All rights reserved". Needs investigation. –Krinkletalk 14:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The icon was maded in 1992 (see [10]) so the authors are still alive (however don't passed 70 years from their death) and the image is under copyright. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the official website of this chirch [11](translation), it was completly rebuilt in 2000. Before that,it wasn't even a chirch. No FoP in Ukraine. -Shureg (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- PD-old building, was erected in 1911. You can see 1911 on wall at left. No real reason for deletion -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- An old exterior of the building [12] had very little in common with it's modern look. --Shureg (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![[12]](http://st-xenia.vin.ua/_history/foto/sm_07.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Once again, we have a featured picture where no one did fundamental homework. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The template translates the 1996 law as:
- works created by authors who died before the enforcement of this law and whose term of intellectual property protection has not expired yet shall have the term lengthened to that provided in this law.
however, the law says:
- Durata drepturilor de exploatare asupra operelor create de autorii decedaţi înainte de intrarea în vigoare a prezentei legi şi pentru care au expirat termenele de protecţie se prelungeşte până la termenul de protecţie prevăzut în prezenta lege. LEGE nr.8 din 14 martie 1996
the exact opposite.
Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination as I found that the law changed again in 2003-2004 to add that not word that was missing. I'll link to the correct law and modify the text of the template to include the current law text:
- Durata drepturilor patrimoniale asupra operelor create înainte de intrarea în vigoare a prezentei legi şi pentru care nu au expirat termenele de protecţie calculate conform procedurilor legislaţiei anterioare se prelungeşte până la termenul de protecţie prevăzut în prezenta lege. [13]
Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.139.62 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopaedic value I guess. Go'had delete -Tux the penguin (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It probably is in scope, but, regretably, it infringes the architect's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
A possibly copyrighted work of art. Threshold of originality? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the inside of a building is copyrighted too. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Are the lamps copyrighted? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is likely to be part of a free to enter public exhibition area in the centre and these lamps would have been part of an art installation there. However, sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in France per {{NoFoP-France}}, and I would say there is therefore significant doubt that a photograph of an art installation could be released without restrictions. The precautionary principle applies in this case unless someone could confirm that these lamps were not part of an artwork. --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have long ago stated that I'd humbly agree with any nomination for deletion of any part of this set of photos (Paris in 1981), as I've never been in Paris and have no idea about the places on the photos, also which of them happen to be copyrighted. However, this nomination is somehow puzzling. "De minimis" should be a justification for keeping the photo here, rather than for deleting it. Right? Maybe a little bit elaboration on the arguments for deletion would be helpful. Thanks. →Spiritia 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The building is copyrighted, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in France and the buuilding occupies such a large part of the photo that I am unsure if it is de minimis. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, through my eyes, the large part of the photo is occupied by the pavement and people sitting, while the building is not even shown in whole. If it was the main subject of the image, I guess the direction of shooting would have been somehow upward. However, I admit I'm not really aware how severe is the copyright law in France, so your fears might be justified. :( →Spiritia 05:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- The building is copyrighted, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in France and the buuilding occupies such a large part of the photo that I am unsure if it is de minimis. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I think DM is safe here. The building is incidental to the image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Unclear quality of the source information: it is quite easy to take some widely unknown image from the web and claim that its author is unknown 80.187.110.44 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is COM:DW from [14], uploaded in this forumthread [15]. Funfood ␌ 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![[14]](http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/6148/cortspanqr0.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The image source states "Tous droits réservés" and although the tomb lid dates from 683AD, the photograph of this 3D object has its own copyright to consider. Fæ (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Files by Piotrus
[edit]
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Unreadable. Kobac (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Readable ("Vessel terminating in the forepart of fantastic leonine creature Gold Iran Achaemenid period, 5 th century B.C.(...)>) (text below number 7017) Bulwersator (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what about a text in the left corner? )) I think that this file (like other "text files" by Piotrus) is out of project scope. Kobac (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Unreadable. Kobac (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded. Also largely meaningless. Mr.choppers (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Informative. Anyway, please discuss this in the centralized discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Piotrus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_149.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_151.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_153.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_155.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality. --80.187.110.44 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_164.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_166.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_184.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_190.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Kobac (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_202.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon-started AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_206.JPG). I'd suggest that the anon who nominated it should try to help that way, rather than with a deletion spree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and unsharp: out of scope because it cannot be useful for educational purposes in this quality 80.187.110.44 22:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anon AFD are becoming really annoying. Anyway, this picture should be deleted, AFTER salvagable caption information is transferred to the preceeding picture (File:New_York_by_Piotrus_208.JPG). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion (Files by Piotrus)
[edit]- Keep, conditional. The files should be deleted only AFTER we decipher what we can and update the description of the relevant artifact. In all cases, the description photo follows the artifact picture. The descriptions may not always be very readable, but it should be possible to decypher some useful information, as I already demonstrated to nominator on his talk page (sadly, he never bothered responding to that). To quote myself from his page: "The description File:New York by Piotrus 096.JPG tells us that the figure on File:New York by Piotrus 097.JPG is Chinese, from 7th century, Tang Dynasty, and others may be able to discern even more info from it. When a volunteer decides they've extracted enough, we can delete it". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: While I appreciate the contributions of all these works of art, it is up to the uploader to
- provide adequate descriptions
- use useful filenames
- upload only useful images, not those with substantial motion blur.
It seems to me that Piotrus is trying to transfer work to other Commons editors. We all have plenty to do, if he wants to upload images, then he must be responsible for providing the descriptions as well. Finally, I note for the record that many of the works of art pictured are also of low quality and may be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have deleted all of these using DelReqHandler. There appears to be a problem of some sort in clearing the page cache on the server, so that some of them are showing up with a blue link even though they are deleted. I will ensure that they are all, in fact, deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works. Unclear source of original maps.
- File:خريطة أولاد علي.jpg
- File:خريطة أراضي أولاد سعيد.jpg
- File:أراضي قبيلة أولاد زيان.jpg
- File:45أولاد سعيد.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة أولاد حريز.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة ولاد حريز.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة أولاد سعيد.jpg
- File:Carte de la tribus Oulad Bou'Aziz.jpg
- File:خريطة العالم العربي.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة أولاد بوعزيز.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة أولاد زيان.jpg
- File:خريطة قبيلة أولاد زيان3.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, portraits of unidentified people. Given the very low resolution, probably copyright violations too.
- File:Presenter2.jpg
- File:Presenter1.jpg
- File:Coach4.jpg
- File:Coach3.jpg
- File:Coach2.jpg
- File:Coach1.jpg
Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: no valid EXIF information and typical low web resolution High Contrast (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Wiki02 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Wiki02 (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as likely copyvio & additional del req by uploader himself. Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this gallery in scope? Are all of these census vital (!) records in scope? Note that these are not old records -- they are recent. If we set a precedent and keep these, where do we stop? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Media - scanned records from 50 to 150 years ago. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – definitely!: The vital records of Minden (Germany) contained in this gallery are useful for an educational purpose. And, this gallery is meant as an useful index to the several vital records from 1874 to 1980. --vluebben 14:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Vluebben (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Converting from speedy deletion with "non free logo" as the rationale. I don't see why this wouldn't be covered by {{PD-textlogo}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert of trademark law, but Canonical has a a quite lengthy trademark policy. Although it can be considered quite permissive, for instance it allowes derivative works, it forbids any use that is not explicitly allowed in the policy, e.g. "any commercial use".--Japs 88 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Illustration on page 126 is (most likely) made of sv:Th. Lennart Nyblom (1872-1947). This page is therefor not PD until 2018 in Sweden. (Authors death +70). Published 1907, therefor free in USA. I suggest that page 126 is covered with ink until 2018. Lavallen (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- On page 224 is there also a reproduction of a painting by Prince Eugen (1865–1947) with the same problem. The rest of the illustrations are in public domain as far as I know. I can upload a new djvu-file with the problematic illustrations blanked, if it is required.--Thurs (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have now uploaded a new version of the file where the questionable illustrations have been hidden. The previous version of the file from 16 april 2011 kl. 20.39 can now be deleted or hidden and this deletion request closed.--Thurs (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This kind of work is a problem for Wikipedia since it's contrary to the rule of "No original research". I understand that this rule may not apply to Commons but how are we supposed to deal with such files when their use is not desirable on WP ? If it's not deleted, could we create some template saying "this file is not desirable as an illustration of a Wikipedia article" ?! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand this nomination, it is not that this diagram is inaccurate, but that it may violate policy on WP because it is original research. Aside from the fact that it could be easily footnoted, enforcing WP policy is not our problem. Although this is outside my fields of interest, I think it is in scope, as the people named are notable. I would not object to deletion on the grounds that it is out of scope, but not that it violates policy on WP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This picture is inaccurate. See disscusion http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Japanese_versions_of_diagrams Eluveitie (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete-I don't mind-I just translated it-nothing significant-Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I watched the Mayday (Air Emergency, Air Crash Investigation) episode "Out of Control" and it does use a "front-facing" view" to illustrate how the repair had been incorrectly done. The documentary's diagram has a "Panel A" and "Panel B" and shows that one row of rivets held the repair, versus two rows. If you want I can send you a link to the episode and you can see how that diagram is working WhisperToMe (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No permission. The images from the Deutsche Fotothek cooperation are "uploaded by the FotothekBot bot". This file was uploaded not by the bot. Saibo (Δ) 01:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Muss ich mir jetzt eine erlaubnis holen von der Deutschen Fotothek damit ich es ihr bei Wikipedia verwenden darf? --Chris655 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ja, eine Freigabe unter freier Lizenz vom Fotograf oder dem Inhaber der nötigen Rechte an dem Bild. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this really a free image? Muslim countries have a tradition of calligraphy, so isn't there a risk that calligraphy is protected there just as it is in East Asia? Additionally, Egypt is a former British colony, so there is a risk that the British threshold of originality might have been inherited by Egypt. Stefan4 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really artistic/aesthetic calligraphy as commonly traditionally understood. Except for the initial alif, it's quite blocky and minimalistic (some would say ugly). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that there are plenty of revisions of the file. The one from 11 December 2010 looks more calligraphic than the other ones. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- If certain revisions of a file are problematic, but not the current version, the ordinary solution is to delete the problematic revisions, not the file as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I meant that all revisions may be problematic, but I'm not sure. The one from 11 December 2010 might be more problematic than the other revisions. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Permission is claimed to be from http://www.mirinirecepti.rs but the image is watermarked "www.upustva.co.yu". The version at minirecepti.rs also seems to have this watermarked cloned over and replaced with a new one. Quibik (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.mirinirecepti.rs is one of the 5 subwebsites of www.upustva.co.yu (now http://www.uputstva.net/). And it is signed by Mira and Neša, owners of webcite. AGF by me. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
_-_schr%C3%A4g.jpg){kind=link}
_-_schr%C3%A4g.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
From speedy --Saibo (Δ) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
speedydelete|I as an owner of this file, would like to have extinguished this picture because there is already a better picture exists and this is a kind of a copy which has originated from treatments in the picture called before it. Thank you --Geograf 95 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC). Saibo (Δ) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
_-_schräg.jpg){kind=link}
_-_schräg.jpg){kind=link}
- Hallo Geograf95, ich habe den Schnelllöschantrag entfernt - ich kann keinen Schnelllöschgrund erkennen. Kannst du das bitte nochmal auf Deutsch erklären - ich verstehe nicht, was du meinst. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Saibo, natürlich gerne: Ich als ein Eigentümer dieser Bilddatei, hätte gern dieses Bild gelöscht, weil bereits ein besseres Bild davon existiert und dieses als eine Art Kopie durch Bearbeitungen am vorhergenannten Bild entstanden ist. Würde mich freuen wenn du das löschen könntest, da es ja vom Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) (z.B. siehe Artikel mit Bild in der Wikipedia) schon mehrere Bilder gibt. Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Du bist nicht "Eigentümer", sondern Urheber und Uploader (Hochlader) der Bilddatei - das nur zur Korrektur. :-) Du meinst also das Bild ist überflüssig (oder gibt es einen speziellen Grund, wieso das gelöscht werden soll)? Weswegen ich das Bild noch nicht gelöscht habe: jedes hier hochgeladene Bild macht Arbeit - dieses wurde sogar von de.Wikipedia hierher übertragen - wenn es gelöscht würde, wäre die Arbeit umsonst. Welches andere Bild gibt es denn? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ja, in der Tat es ist wirklich überflüssig. Ich bin mir schon bewusst das Bilder Arbeit machen, aber das Bild vom Gebäude im Arikel Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) (bei de.Wikipedia) könnte als Ersatz dienen (auch dieses ist von de.Wikipedia hierher übertragen worden). Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- In de:Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) ist File:Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) - fast frontal.jpg. Eben eine Frontalansicht - und die hier zur Diskussion stehende Datei ist von schräg. Ich kann leider nicht nachvollziehen, wieso du die "schräg" weghaben willst. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Na weil diese Datei einfach überflüssig ist und keinen Nutzen hat. (Und von bester Qualität ist das Bild auch nicht) Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Verstehe ich nicht - und die Diskussion ist auch shcon lang genug. --Saibo (Δ) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Na weil diese Datei einfach überflüssig ist und keinen Nutzen hat. (Und von bester Qualität ist das Bild auch nicht) Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- In de:Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) ist File:Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) - fast frontal.jpg. Eben eine Frontalansicht - und die hier zur Diskussion stehende Datei ist von schräg. Ich kann leider nicht nachvollziehen, wieso du die "schräg" weghaben willst. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ja, in der Tat es ist wirklich überflüssig. Ich bin mir schon bewusst das Bilder Arbeit machen, aber das Bild vom Gebäude im Arikel Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) (bei de.Wikipedia) könnte als Ersatz dienen (auch dieses ist von de.Wikipedia hierher übertragen worden). Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Du bist nicht "Eigentümer", sondern Urheber und Uploader (Hochlader) der Bilddatei - das nur zur Korrektur. :-) Du meinst also das Bild ist überflüssig (oder gibt es einen speziellen Grund, wieso das gelöscht werden soll)? Weswegen ich das Bild noch nicht gelöscht habe: jedes hier hochgeladene Bild macht Arbeit - dieses wurde sogar von de.Wikipedia hierher übertragen - wenn es gelöscht würde, wäre die Arbeit umsonst. Welches andere Bild gibt es denn? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Saibo, natürlich gerne: Ich als ein Eigentümer dieser Bilddatei, hätte gern dieses Bild gelöscht, weil bereits ein besseres Bild davon existiert und dieses als eine Art Kopie durch Bearbeitungen am vorhergenannten Bild entstanden ist. Würde mich freuen wenn du das löschen könntest, da es ja vom Stadtschreiberhaus (Delitzsch) (z.B. siehe Artikel mit Bild in der Wikipedia) schon mehrere Bilder gibt. Gruß, --Geograf 95 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
_-_fast_frontal.jpg){kind=link}
_-_schräg.jpg){kind=link}
Without source, description, http://wikisky.org/wiki/Copyright_-_DSS2_images (copyright info missed in transfer) is dead link Bulwersator (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - wikisky gave a non-commercial license, but is this copyrightable?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Pieter that there is nothing copyrightable here, but is it in scope -- without a better description, is it useful? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- "there is nothing copyrightable here" - why? Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is in scope - used on multiple wikis + filename is quite clear Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is fairly well established on Commons that automatic cameras do not have any creativity. As I read the FAQ at http://www.wikisky.org/ it seems to be an automatic sky survey. I do not mean to demean astronomers, but it seems to me that there is no creativity in having a telescope, even a large, sophisticated, and expensive telescope, automatically take a series of black and white images of the sky. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but current "Friendlystar at en.wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work" is blatantly incorrect and I was unable to find PD-automatic-camera tag or any discussion that confirmed that works like this are in PD. But I found an image created in a similar way and deleted as copyvio: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhinopithecus strykeri on camera trap, January 2012.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is fairly well established on Commons that automatic cameras do not have any creativity. As I read the FAQ at http://www.wikisky.org/ it seems to be an automatic sky survey. I do not mean to demean astronomers, but it seems to me that there is no creativity in having a telescope, even a large, sophisticated, and expensive telescope, automatically take a series of black and white images of the sky. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In support of my comment above, I refer editors to Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices which cites both case law and the USCO to show that images taken by automatic processes do not have a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
File was just kept as "In support of my comment above, I refer editors to Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices which cites both case law and the USCO to show that images taken by automatic processes do not have a copyright.
Linked page: "Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work."
The critical thing is "pre-positioned (...) whatever happens to take place in their field of view" - automatic sky survey are taking pictures of selected parts of sky (here - Ursa Minor Dwarf). If this is kept then we may keep every single picture made by satellite. Bulwersator (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is an interesting question. If I connect to a remote camera and tell it to point in a particular direction and take a picture, have I exercised any creativity? I think not. Satellite images may be a different case, since they must contend with cloud cover, so that many satellite images are actually composites assembled by humans. This is certainly the case with the images that Google uses. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The TOO page and resulting previous closure are, in my judgment, incorrect, at least by virtue of omission. An important finding in the Southwest Casino and Hotel case [16] is that "No judgment or creativity was utilized to create the work. [...] There was no creativity involved on what to record; when to record; or how to record it."
- Implicitly, it is not the mere pre-positioning of an apparatus that precludes copyright (as is incorrectly implied by the TOO page), but the lack of deliberate human interaction (judgment) with the apparatus causing the creation of the work. Jim’s example above fails, as “tell[ing] it to point in a particular direction and take a picture” is the application of judgment (which direction), and “when to record”. There seems an immensely important distinction to be drawn between a device mounted to record for perpetuity without direct instruction (a surveillance camera) and a device performing a deliberate, finite “routine” (e.g., satellites are generally given specific imaging objectives and related flight plans and time tables – an application of judgment, “what to record”, and “when to record”). Accordingly, without knowing the circumstances underlying the creation of this sky survey, COM:PRP suggests deletion in the absence of evidence this is truly just a big surveillance camera pointed at the sky with none of the aforementioned elements of judgment. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- As a thought experiment, imagine a time-lapse movie of a flower opening or the seasons changing (e.g., Planet Earth). Would we deny the filmmaker a copyright because the camera was pre-positioned and he was likely not present to observe or manipulate the filming? I would hope not. A deliberate decision was made of what to film and when to film it. Similarly, with the sky survey, I imagine a deliberate decision had to be made to move the telescope to a certain point of sky (what to photograph) and when to do so (when it was free of cloud cover). Эlcobbola talk 21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I like your time-lapse thought experiment and agree that it should result in a copyright. However, the entire process sounds like a security camera that is pointed at a flower. Perhaps the creativity comes in the fact that while setting up, the creator (if we may use that word) has a reasonable expectation that something significant will happen?
- I think that is different from our sky survey -- again, all the astronomer did is to put the particular coordinates of this star on a list and let the camera do its thing. Yes, he or she had to supply coordinates, but surveillance cameras are also carefully adjusted for field of view. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I worry that expectation was not a consideration in the case law, so I don’t know whether that is necessarily a productive path to pursue. If we do entertain it, however, I would make the distinction that a surveillance camera has no particular expectation; it simply captures whatever may or may not happen (“The video merely depicts the 'goings on' […]”). Conversely, the time-lapse flower and the sky survey both have expectations of a specific subject. The work is not being created in case something noteworthy wanders into its field of view, it is being created because the instant subject is actually desired (i.e., unlike the survallence camera, the "when to record" criterion is met). Эlcobbola talk 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think it's the pre-positioned aspect which could make security videos uncopyrightable -- that would be denying protection to a photographer who set up a camera on a tripod and activated the shutter with a remote device, which is hardly any different than hand-holding. The copyright in a photograph is more based on the choice of angle, framing, exposure, timing, etc. especially if trying to achieve a desired result. For deep-space shots, the angle is more-or-less chosen for you (it's the angle from Earth), but all the rest can still apply I'd think. For security cameras, several of those other elements go away -- there is no timing issue, the framing is mostly generic (trying to cover the maximum territory, more a utilitarian purpose), and indeed for there to be an "author" in such situations it would most likely be the security company who did the installation itself, which seems ridiculous. For something like a traffic camera, it would get cloudier -- there is an intended result for that, and somebody copying the video feed and making use of it as a competitor... not sure that would fly. But for something like this, there would be a clear author, the one who operates the telescope. The author cannot prevent someone else from making a near-identical photograph of course, but they should have a copyright on their particular photograph, and be able to prevent people from copying that. It's not a photo taken by an automatic process, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete OK -- Эlcobbola's time lapse thought experiment and Carl's opinion have convinced me. I don't think I should be the one to close this, though. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is consensus to delete the image, per the arguments of Carl Lindberg, Эlcobbola, and the nominator. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The OFL is not a free license. See the following excerpt from the license text:
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Liliana-60 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete While commons does allow non-free licences as an alternative (for example a person may upload under a free and non-free licence), OFL seems to specifically disallow dual-licence approach in its last paragraph. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. --84.61.139.62 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- How would this affect the use of several OFL fonts in the WebFonts extension, which is installed on many Wikimedia wikis? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- It wouldn't violate the license (since the fonts aren't "sold by themselves"), but they're not free so I'm not sure how that would conform with WMF policies. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Somehow the Linux Libertine project managed to dual-license their fonts with GPLv3 anyways. The debian-legal list discussed the OFL's freeness a few years back, but their discussion centered around OFL's requirement to distribute derivative works under a different name (which would be better enforced through a trademark anyways). Perhaps due to the Debian community's concerns, SIL defends OFL's compatibility with various free software models on its website. Regardless, Commons doesn't currently allow uploading fonts themselves. Instead, this template indicates the license of fonts displayed in specimens that'd fall under {{PD-font}}. Of the images currently tagged with this template, only the SVG specimens of fonts that aren't dual-licensed would actually depend on this template. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- See FSF argument -- it still can be sold as part of a dummy software package (e.g. "Hello World" one), so this remark in practice doesn't change a thing. P.S. Fonts can be uploaded as part of PDF for example. --Trycatch (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the license considered free by OpenFontLibrary [17], Google Web Fonts, Debian, FSF [18] (English language should be selected in your web browser to get the English version, extremely annoying behavior of the site) and Open Source Initiative [19], i.e. the entire free world. It's the main free font license of the FOSS world, so I don't see the reason why it should be treated by Commons any different. Trycatch (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Re: FSF’s site: add “.en” before the “.html”: [20]. --AVRS (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Trycatch (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Re: FSF’s site: add “.en” before the “.html”: [20]. --AVRS (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete.. FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This file does not have a permission. Not CC and GNU licensed. Possble Viacom's copyright violation. JJ98 (Talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It has a license. If it's correct, we don't need Viacom's permission. Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Nick doesn't use the splat logo anymore, so shouldn't this image be replaced? Ichthyoid (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't just show current logos on Wikimedia projects, we often show former ones too. Fry1989 eh? 00:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It can fall in {{PD-shape}}, but some originality may be questioned. Blond (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
