Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
,,AA 99.6.89.78 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, disruptive nonsense nomination. (Speedy non-admin closure.) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely a copyvio? It is a cropped derivative of a promo poster Sitush (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Derivative image. Uploader likely doesn't own the image's copyright. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image with no OTRS tag verifying permission for use Dismas (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image without an OTRS tag verifying permission of use. Dismas (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image without an OTRS tag verifying permission of use. Dismas (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image without an OTRS tag verifying permission of use. Dismas (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image without an OTRS tag verifying permission of use. Dismas (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is author. When was picture taken? How was it taken? Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/mind3967.jpg Orchi (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as clear copyvio from http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/mind3967.jpg. Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/attachments/cattleyas-vandas-dendrobiums-bloom/30466d1278319232-dendrobium-philippinensis-den1.jpg Orchi (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as clear copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/grammspeciosum.jpg Orchi (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as clear copyvio from http://www.orchidspecies.com/. Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.orchid-nord.com/d_page/dendrobium-vict-reginae/Dendrobium-victoria-reginae.jpg Orchi (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as clear copyvio from orchid-nord.com. Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/imgcache/11798.png Orchi (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as clear copyvio from http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/orchids-other-genera-bloom/15417-six-foot-spike-grammatophyllum-wallisii.html ( All images and content on RVO–OrchidTalk© are copyrighted and may not be used without RVO's permission). Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The signatures on this image are public domain, but this is a promotional image owned by RCA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 07:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, no indication Flickr uploader has any authority to release under free license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is a drawing? I think this is actually a photo. It was on the cover of El Gráfico in 1941: El Gráfico had this name because it depicted Argentine sports personalities with coloured or b/w pictures. --Triple 8 (msg) 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that this image is a drawing Bulwersator (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Southern Living, said to be "unknown author" and "intended for educational purpose only", so not free enough as required (see Commons:Licensing) —innotata 00:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no clue what educational value this unused image has for this and related projects. SarahStierch (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not by the uploader, "Low resolution scan of a derivative work used for educational purpose only.", so not free to use widely as required for Commons, and unlikely to be OK for fair use on Wikipedia. —innotata 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.hamienet.com/score26752-4.html, not by the uploader. —innotata 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the picture but do not wish to have this picture of myself up anymore. Please delete ASAP. JonathanLGardner (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request/Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by a SVG image with no compression artifacts (bad quality); no usage Nobelium (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Superseded images policy: "The deletion of superseded images has been discontinued!" VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with rationale as provied by Beta M (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per above Techman224Talk 19:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The description "Courtesy of Corbis" (which also appears on the source) indicates this is not the work of the White House and the license is invalid. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Takabeg (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. This character is 「サトシのベイリーフ」 (Satoshi no beiriifu) in Pokemon. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The web site claimed as source does not say anything about a GFDL license or any other license at all. Thuresson (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Source appears to be Friesovy Boudy's website, no indication of free license. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
private photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not description Avron (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
private photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
private photos, not used Avron (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
private photos, not used Avron (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo? not used Avron (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Jaranda wat's sup 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it, I don't want it there any more and I can't delete it myself. Martine Vidal (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader's request and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Work for the school, out of project scope Cambalachero (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Personal photo, out of scope. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Personal photo, out of scope. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Flickr user Barreto_Diego isnt the copyright holder but someone who uploads files to his flickr that he likes. Nothing in his photostream is self-created. Please critically evaluate if the person who licenses something on flickr is realy the copyright holder, see Template:Flickrvionote. Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- p.s.: flickr upload of December 2010, uploader on Commons also said photo of 2010 (I repeat: dont blindly trust such flickr uploaders...), photo appeared in http://ilovefun.9forum.biz/t1825-jelena-karleusa and dozens of other pages in 2008 already. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Scraped from Facebook so probably copyright. Unused. Poor quality. QU TalkQu 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, probable copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyright violation. availiable ina larger version here: http://www.teamtalk.com/newcastle-united/player-profile/5030 The uploader has a history of copyright violation. Kafuffle (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This specific recording of the National Anthem is under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Where says that it's under copyright? In the north-corean constitution it isn't.
Cidel (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The song itself is public domain, but each recording has their own specific copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And, where is the copyright of these recording? Cidel (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Automatic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea#Chapter_2._Object_of_Copyright User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where can I read the original in english from another webpage, please? the last time I've read that law said another thing Cidel (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=9722 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The flag, coat and anthem of North Korea are free and of the public dominium. This is said by Alejandro Cao de Benòs, a person who knows all of north korea (Also is the president of the KFA) If you want to ask him you have the email contact here http://www.korea-dpr.com/international.htm Cidel (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The lyrics and notation is, but each arrangement of the anthem has a specific copyright attached to it (and such copyright is automatic). The only things that are automatically public domain in North Korea is documents of legal or judicial nature. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- It has copyright because you say and that fake Northkorean law, not the real , send an e-mail to Alejandro Cao de Benòs, he knows all the legal related to North Korea Cidel (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Another thing: The midi version didn't have copyright (If it has i see a double-moral on wikimedia)? Because I don't saw any deletion request Cidel (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because the MIDI file was used making public domain legal text and the creator of the MIDI file allowed it to be in the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- You said that the song hasn't copyright. (That's inconsistent) I repeat, you don't know who are the orchestra that plays that song. I think this Deletion request is only because is treating of a northkorean topic. Another similar passed on the Spanish wikipedia with the satelital image of the country. Why is the night image on the article (There are hundreds of day images on commons)??? I think because you ALL administrators think that because they are a communist country, they are the evil. I'm seeing that wikipedia has not all the equal that its administrators are saying it is. --Cidel (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I said before, the song itself (the lyrics and the musical notation) does not have any attached copyright, but each recording (expression) of the national anthem does have a copyright and it is expressed in North Korean law. As for the lack of images, it is because we don't have free resources for North Korea except anything coming from NASA or people put on Flickr. Plus North Korea has rules that prevent a lot of things from getting photographed and put as a free license. As for what the Spanish Wikipedia does, it is different from what we do and we demand media to be freer than many Wikipediae do. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- You said that the song hasn't copyright. (That's inconsistent) I repeat, you don't know who are the orchestra that plays that song. I think this Deletion request is only because is treating of a northkorean topic. Another similar passed on the Spanish wikipedia with the satelital image of the country. Why is the night image on the article (There are hundreds of day images on commons)??? I think because you ALL administrators think that because they are a communist country, they are the evil. I'm seeing that wikipedia has not all the equal that its administrators are saying it is. --Cidel (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because the MIDI file was used making public domain legal text and the creator of the MIDI file allowed it to be in the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The lyrics and notation is, but each arrangement of the anthem has a specific copyright attached to it (and such copyright is automatic). The only things that are automatically public domain in North Korea is documents of legal or judicial nature. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The flag, coat and anthem of North Korea are free and of the public dominium. This is said by Alejandro Cao de Benòs, a person who knows all of north korea (Also is the president of the KFA) If you want to ask him you have the email contact here http://www.korea-dpr.com/international.htm Cidel (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=9722 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where can I read the original in english from another webpage, please? the last time I've read that law said another thing Cidel (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea#Chapter_2._Object_of_Copyright User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Automatic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And, where is the copyright of these recording? Cidel (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyrighted work as Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a Berne signatory nation and enjoys world-wide IP protection. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unless it is shown that there either is no copyright (or similar right) for recordings and musical performances in North Korea. The template on the file page may explain sufficiently that the text and melody of the anthem are in the PD in North Korea, but it does not apply to all kinds of government works (like it is (nearly) for all US federal government works). So even if the musicians and the person who arranged the recording were all State employees the recording and musical performance could be protected. Usually the act of recording and the performance of music is protected by the copyright laws. And, to repeat, usually copyright is automatic - there is no © tag required (that was only the case many years ago in the USA). --Saibo (Δ) 23:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I repeat: Where can I see that this recording has copyright?? --Cidel (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- As Saibo said, as the uploader, you have to prove it is free. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I downloaded from http://www.big.or.jp/~jrldr/w/na1.html and I converted it to *.ogg. PS: On the index says in korean: "모든악곡,가사,동영상을 영리목적으로 사용할수없습니다." is translated as: "All music, lyrics, videos are not available for commercial purposes" This isn't a commercial purpose. (Is on the foot of: http://www.big.or.jp/~jrldr/index.html --Cidel (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC))
- Yes it is. All media on the Commons must be available for use by anyone, anywhere and for any reason (including commercial reuse). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commercial use is absolutely required for anything to count as free. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commercial use is the oppose to be free, because i can sell any that isn't mine (If i record anyting from wikipedia and i sell it, for example). Anyway, all over wikimedia is published over Creative Commons ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ). Over this license, NOTHING can be selled (You all can see it on the foot of all pages of wikipedia, wikiquote or commons). --Cidel (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. And CC-BY-SA license you linked does allow commercial use. Read the page as it reads "You are free [...] to make commercial use of the work" explicitly granting the right. I am free to download images on commons and sell them for profit. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- But, always saying its procedence if you will to sell it, else, in my country (and i think in the whole world) has a name: STEALING --Cidel (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think what you are thinking of is CC-NC, which is a Creative Commons license that does not allow for commercial reuse. However, I suggest for you to look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sobre_las_licencias#Licencias_aceptables User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- But, always saying its procedence if you will to sell it, else, in my country (and i think in the whole world) has a name: STEALING --Cidel (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. And CC-BY-SA license you linked does allow commercial use. Read the page as it reads "You are free [...] to make commercial use of the work" explicitly granting the right. I am free to download images on commons and sell them for profit. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commercial use is the oppose to be free, because i can sell any that isn't mine (If i record anyting from wikipedia and i sell it, for example). Anyway, all over wikimedia is published over Creative Commons ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ). Over this license, NOTHING can be selled (You all can see it on the foot of all pages of wikipedia, wikiquote or commons). --Cidel (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I downloaded from http://www.big.or.jp/~jrldr/w/na1.html and I converted it to *.ogg. PS: On the index says in korean: "모든악곡,가사,동영상을 영리목적으로 사용할수없습니다." is translated as: "All music, lyrics, videos are not available for commercial purposes" This isn't a commercial purpose. (Is on the foot of: http://www.big.or.jp/~jrldr/index.html --Cidel (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: File taken from a site that is NC. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aegukka.ogg. This time there is still no indication that this specific recording is PD or under a free license therefore the previous reason for deletion is still valid. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - words and music are PD, but the performance is (c). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
fehlerhafter Bot, möglicherweise wegen Umlaut im Dateinamen Christianrueger (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File page with no file uploaded. -- Common Good (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I made a mistake in the status of the image and can't find how to alter it. Best solition is to start again. Martine Vidal (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:CT2 logo.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:CT1 logo.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly not original work or free-use. The uploader even fully admitted that it's from Universal Hub. Should be moved to English Wikipedia; pretty easy to justify fair use for use in en:MBTA Commuter Rail and en:MPI HSP-46 until someone can grab a shot of the real thing in a year. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Closed early at the request of Pi.1415926535 who will move it to WP:EN. As he says, obvious copyvio, therefore speedy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.139.62 13:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep where COM:FOP applies here? A building in background (clear case of COM:DM moreover the building is, I think, not original enough), and some wood in water... Jeriby (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Typical COM:DM case. --Tangopaso (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing protectable in this photo thus FOP is irrelevant here. Chaddy (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see anything copyrightable here either: the building here is de minimis or under the threshold of originality; the reconstitution of beaver dam also is PD-ineligible. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
We have over a dozen images of Shakira in this outfit from this tour, and this particular one is especially blurry, to the point that it really isn't usable (in light of the others). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - This image will be used on Wikipedia in a small size with no problem. The photo have a license accepted on Commons and do not violate the rules. This image should not be eliminated for not being in HD. Other categories of touring with other artists also has pictures of different qualities, see for example the categories Femme Fatale Tour (with 263 files), Sticky and Sweet Tour (with 139 files), Avril Lavigne in Belo Horizonte (with 100 files) and other categories. I see no problem with the permanence of this image here. Truu (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as unused, low quality and duplicated Bulwersator (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Thre are no reason for delete this pictures. Vitor Mazuco Msg 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality if used in thumbs, not a duplicate, etc. Tm (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
uninterested 96.240.228.114 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- I think "uninterested" is not an appropriate reason to list a file for deletion, particularly since the license is valid, the image is used in articles, and the image illustrates the work of a prominent American architect. I suspect this nomination is vandalism, but if it isn't, the person listing this needs to clarify his/her position beyond "uninterested". --Elkman (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The copyright information on the bottom of the source website states that the images are free to use but "All further use of the content on this site must be for non-profit purposes." Quibik (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. - Takabeg (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to wowturkey by Himmet Sempatik on September 19, 2007. Takabeg (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.139.62 13:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep where COM:FOP applies here? A building in background (clear case of COM:DM moreover the building is, I think, not original enough), and some wood in water... Jeriby (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Typical COM:DM case. --Tangopaso (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing protectable in this photo thus FOP is irrelevant here. Chaddy (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see anything copyrightable here either: the building here is de minimis or under the threshold of originality; the reconstitution of beaver dam also is PD-ineligible. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Text only PDF. Appears to be a personal project, not peer reviewed and not a true academic paper so out of scope. QU TalkQu 20:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had not realised the licence allowed anyone to sell the image. I thought they could use it, but not sell it Martine Vidal (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. (Also lacking an explanation of how the uploader became the copyright owner.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had not realised the licence allowed anyone to sell the image. I thought they could use it, but not sell it Martine Vidal (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had not realised the licence allowed anyone to sell the image. I thought they could use it, but not sell it Martine Vidal (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had not realised the licence allowed anyone to sell the image. I thought they could use it, but not sell it Martine Vidal (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had not realised the licence allowed anyone to sell the image. I thought they could use it, but not sell it Martine Vidal (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
According to en:Authorized King James Version (see the infobox and the "Copyright" section), this work published in 1611 is subject to a special exception in British copyright law. Despite being {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old-100}}, copyright remains in the UK until the end of 2039. As such, it is not yet out of copyright in the source country. Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If they make such an extraordinary exception to the copyright law, then let's make an extraordinary exception to our hosting policy. And add a note to the description page saying that the image can't be used in the UK. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)(Still a valid point, IMO, but not necessary, as this work is not under the special non-copyright prerogative anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC))
I wonder if this applies to ALL instances of this reproduction, i.e. libraries around the world, or if this is just meant to apply to Wikipedia?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.78.115 (talk • contribs)
- It is only copyrighted in the United Kingdom, so it only applies to reproduction in the United Kingdom. However, Commons requires a work to be free in the source country, which is in this case the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please move this file to de.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org! --84.61.139.62 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. After reading the Wikipedia articles, it seems obvious to me that this work (this file) is not included in the object of the special non-copyright royal prerogative relative to the Authorized Version. There is no indication that this work was part of the text of the Authorized Version, i.e. the translated biblical text that was elaborated by the team of translators appointed by king James. The translated biblical text constitutes the whole of the Authorized Version and is the only object of the special non-copyright royal prerogative. This work (the illustrated page) is completely external to it and is merely an addition that accompanied the first printing by Barker. This work was never part of the work of the translators, which is the object of the special non-copyright royal prerogative relative to the translated biblical text of the Authorized Version. Whatever ordinary copyright may have existed on this work, if any, would have been completely separate and independent from the special non-copyright royal prerogative on the translated biblical text of the Authorized Version. This work is in the public domain worldwide. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep(unless there are difficulties with rights to the image itself) This is not strictly a question of copyright but of rights of publishing and distribution which are, in this case, only restricted within the United Kingdom and will continue to be so for an indefinite period since the clauses of the 1988 act which restrict the right to publish certain Crown materials before 31/12/2039 are not applicable here. In addition, the use made by wiki of this material seems to fall under the head of "incidental use" allowed by the act. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is certainly in the same position and several extracts are reproduced in "Celebrating the Anglican Way" (Bunting(ed) 1996) with no other acknowledgment than the attribution to the BCP. Interestingly enough, there are two photos of title-pages of different editions and permission to reproduce these is duly recognized.186.10.178.199 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)sorry, somehow I signed outJpacobb (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That blog - http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/object.php?o=1223074 - is not the copyright holder. The text as well as the photo is copied from EFE, as the blog says themself and other sources ([1]) confirm. The CC license of the blog may apply to their own content, it cant apply to content that they copied from third party sources. Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you can't seeing copyright, seeing down. You can seeing 'Licencia'.--SouthSudan (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- You refer to http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/object.php?o=1223074. That Licensia is invalid, the blog is not the copyright owner on this third party content, they cant license something that they not own. --Martin H. (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing Polarlys (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Conflicts with a statement by Jimbo. This, basically now only makes the images free in the US, in violation of COM:L. --ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Jimbo does not even mention Afghanistan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate how Jimbo's statement applies to a country that does not have copyright laws? Your request doesn't make sense to me as is. Patrícia msg 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think this tag is legally valid internationally, although we might still agree to grant authors some protection in cases like this. --Botev (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)- Comment I agree that Jimbo's comment about Iran, a country that, unlike Afghanistan, is a signatory to International Copyright agreements, and does have domestic copyright laws, is not applicable to Afghanistan, a country that is not a signatory to International Copyright agreements, and does not have domestic copyright laws. -- Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful if we got the legal advice of the wikimedia foundation's lawyers on this.
- Some wire services, and freelance photographers, treat images from Afghanistan as if all the rights to an image could be claimed by the first person to publish the image in a country that is a signatory to an international copyright agreement. That hardly seems fair.
- If the above were true, how would it affect images taken by US Federal employees, which would normally be PD by virtue of being taken by a US Federal employee. There are a bunch of images, clearly taken by GIs, but which weren't published by the DoD. My understanding is that US Federal works are born PD, even if they are unpublished, or classified. And, if they are published after being leaked or stolen they are in the PD.
- So, in 2010, Afghanistan signs on to some international copyright images, we send a bot to nominate all the {{PD-Afghanistan}} images for deletion? So what about those images which would also have been PD because they were taken by US Federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Jimbo's statement is completely unrelated, it talks about respecting domestic copyright law in foreign countries. That means respecting the Afghan lack of copyright law, at best. If Afghanistan said "death + 40!" in a few years, we would have to go through and take a closer look at all files -- but WMF is Not a Crystal Ball, and these images are legal to host and without copyright status anywhere in the world. Sherurcij (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above (though some expansion/claification of the license text may be helpful). Iran having a copyright law not recognized by the USA is not the same thing as Afghanistan having no copyright law at all. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Section 104 of the US Code does not cover does not exculpate completely a public domain status of such files. This is moving on thin ice. I'd rather suggest this template to get removed. --80.187.106.21 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you're saying. In my view, the law clearly says that works from countries with no copyright law are not covered by the law at all. You're right that it doesn't directly say such works are PD, but if there's no law that prohibits something, it can be done. (see Nulla poena sine lege) --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- The template at the moment says "It's from Afghanistan, it's free". So, if in 2010 an Afghan author writes a ground-breaking novel, I can take the text, translate the text and publish the text anywhere in the world, making millions, without having to pay the original author a cent. Sucks for anybody producing creative works in Afghanistan, but it seems to be legal.
- But what about older works? Is it confirmed that Afghanistan never had a copyright law? As far as I can see it's only confirmed that there is no law since 2001.
- And what will happen when Afghanistan creates a copyright law? Based on "nulla poena sine lege" they cannot punish anybody who shared the works before the new law came into effect. But it seems they could penalize the use of the works after that date. What if I would re-publish an Afghan work under CC before a new law comes into effect? It's legal to publish PD works under any license you please. If the new law unPDs the work, what would be stronger: my (legal) release under CC or the new law?
- I have a feeling that the template makes a very broad claim based on very limited information. --Slomox (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is probably true, but as already stated further above, commons is not a crystal ball. We just don't know what's going to happen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The nulla poena principle prohibits retroactive criminal prosecution for breach of copyright, but it does not prevent the Afghen legislature from granting copyright protection retroactively and thereby prohibiting any future unauthorized use of the (now) protected work. A CC release of an Afghan work is currently void, since a CC licence, like every other copyright license, works only if copyright protection exists at all. A CC release of an Afghan work will become active and binding only after Afghanistan gets a copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is probably true, but as already stated further above, commons is not a crystal ball. We just don't know what's going to happen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, if Afghanistan has no copyright laws, there's no way that a work originating there can be at all under copyright. And if the country once had such a law but doesn't anymore, wouldn't the expiration or repeal of that law at whatever time in the past have ended any copyright existing in works published under that law? Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the Taliban had a law and after invading the country the US abolished Taliban laws, does that mean, that all Afghan creative works were expropriated at that moment? (And no successor law could reinstate their copyright, cause once PD all works could be legally relicensed under free licenses?)
- I don't know. I think we need input from somebody who knows actual Afghan law. --Slomox (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a bad situation for everyone creating works in Afghanistan, but I do think they have more pressing political issues than lack of a copyright law (which nobody will stick to, anyway). --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We can revisit this once their laws are established. -Nard the Bard 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that this should be reexamined once Afghanistan has a copyright law, which can also be expected to address the issue of retroactivity. Or until we have US case law granting US copyright protection to Afghan works. Sandstein (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Clear consensus for keeping this template Belgrano (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize this topic has been discussed before but the prior discussion does not appear to be as detailed as one would desire on a discussion of this magnitude where we are essentially paving way for all works made in a country to be uploadable to commons without copyright limitations of any kind.
We had this discussion on en.wikipedia here. This is a very very bad idea. Let me elaborate:
- Are the images in the public domain in the absence of a treaty? Yes, for the moment.
- Will they become fully copyrighted once such a treaty is signed? Yes.
- Is Afganistan and other such countries likely to sign said treaties? Yes, Afghanistan and other such countries are trying to get into WTO which requires the ratification of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and/or sign the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
- Would we be required to delete these images the moment these countries sign the said treaties even though material is in the Public domain? Yes. The case law as explained in Template:PD-Soviet should set the precedent on such content.
Hence, we should avoid featuring any such content that we know will be copyrighted eventually. The individual images may be in the public domain for some other reason so we should take great care in re-licensing/deleting content.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The template accurately describes the copyright status of such works. You only seem to be concerned about Commons usage restrictions of such works. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- We will need to delete all recent works soon after the treaty is signed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of the template is to describe the current copyright status of such works. Whether or not the works are acceptable on Commons is a different matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- We will need to delete all recent works soon after the treaty is signed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is unclear when you would allow works from Afghanistan to be uploaded on Commons. Certainly ancient works would be allowed while you don't seem to want to have recent works here. How would you separate "recent" from "ancient"? Unlike Iran, where there is domestic copyright, Afghanistan has no clear limit. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- When they implement copyright as mandated by WTO application, they will need to have such a law. The main problem is recent content. If something is {{PD-old}} mark it as such. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- But how old would it have to be to be eligible for tagging as "old"? The definition varies from country to country, e.g. pre-March 1989 without a copyright notice, 50 years after publication (term for corporate works in Japan), 50 years after death (e.g. Canada), 100 years after death (Mexico) or approximately 500 years since publication (en:Book of Common Prayer in the UK). --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The template {{PD-old}} seems to be undergoing an update. Pre 1923 rule can apply to works I suppose. This is the problem. We have no idea how severe afghan law will become. We should avoid populating commons with content that will become a copyright problem in the future. This template relies on a loophole to establish public domain and that will lead to problems one way or another. It is a known fact that countries later adopting copyright and/or TRIPS are often suckered into laws that are much more severe than their western counterparts due to copyright groups using the opportunity to influence local governments that are inexperienced in copyright law. So your guess is as good as mine. Wait and tell approach would only lead to the problem growing making it more difficult dealing with it later on. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- But how old would it have to be to be eligible for tagging as "old"? The definition varies from country to country, e.g. pre-March 1989 without a copyright notice, 50 years after publication (term for corporate works in Japan), 50 years after death (e.g. Canada), 100 years after death (Mexico) or approximately 500 years since publication (en:Book of Common Prayer in the UK). --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- When they implement copyright as mandated by WTO application, they will need to have such a law. The main problem is recent content. If something is {{PD-old}} mark it as such. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The day Afghanistan has a copyright law, and rules wich works have copyright protection and wich ones do not, that day we will delete the images that become protected. That day could be tomorrow, or it could be in a decade. In the meantime, there's no copyright law, works are not protected, thus they are acceptable here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The case law on PD-Soviet isn't relevant here, as the Commons will be a reliance party under the URAA. We can't look into our crystal balls and know what the copyright law will be or how it will change in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying "where we are essentially paving way for all works made in a country to be uploadable to commons without copyright limitations of any kind". We're not paving anything; Afghanistan has chosen not only to not be a signator of copyright treaties (letting them use our stuff without copyright limitations of any kind), they've chosen not to have an internal copyright law. There's no copyright limitation, by choice of Afghanistan, not ours.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't Commons have any version of en:WP:CRYSTAL? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This may be very disruptive in terms of free redistribution of all wikimedia content. What do you think will happen to all offline uses of our content in particular? What about uses like OLPC or even Wikireader?
- We want our content to remain in the public domain forever not as long as a loophole in the law is maintained. Keeping content here we know will be copyrighted soon makes no sense. What you suggest will lead to perhaps millions of images that needs to be checked by the time and once a country signs a treaty that day. That day is something that can be completely avoided. This is something we know will happen. This was the mess with PD-Soviet template case where people assumed that Russian law had no bearing in the US as content once it entered the public domain. Commons was forced to mass-delete images tagged with PD-Soviet case after a US county code set the legal precedence to handle such future cases.
- Furthermore there already exists signed agreements between Afghanistan and US government that includes intellectual property rights. Furthermore WIPO also has some info on Afghanistan.
- Even more-so how can you be absolutely certain that the creators of these images had non-Afghan citizenship. Content created in Afghanistan by non-Afghans whom are citizens of Berne signatory countries will still retain copyright. We are almost randomly assuming that the content is in the public domain without identifying the author.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is not a problem with the template but with image sourcing. If an image is not sufficiently sourced, I guess it should be deleted per COM:PRP. It is the uploader's responsibility to make sure that the correct copyright information is available. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, there is no such requirement that we check that day for such material. We would be a reliance party and would have at least a year to cease distribution. There's no way we will have millions of images with this tag; we have no more than 710 right now. The "signed agreement" you link to makes a "work plan" to "Establish a forum for the exchange of information on commercial matters including but not limited to ... Intellectual property rights protection and enforcement". They're planning to establish a forum to exchange information on IP rights protection! That's not a signed agreement that include IP rights at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which implies the law would be passed in not too distant future. And your scenario is something we want to avoid. You are saying we would need to collect offline copies of this content including perhaps OLPC laptops just to keep these images here for a few more years. The implications of this template is far too grand with limited (if any) gain. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Work plans to create forums for discussion imply nothing. Every year, in the US and probably elsewhere, thousands of bills reach legislative bodies and die before even being voted on, and you imply an agreement to discuss a the general subject implies inevitability?
- I have not and am not saying anything about offline copies.
- I don't understand why you think the implications of this template is grand. It says the same thing that every PD template says; that works in the public domain in the US and in their source nation are acceptable to Commons. If there would be no gain, there would be no debate, but it's obviously valuable to be able to host PD files from Afghanistan.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- We want our content to be freely distributed beyond the US border. That is why content that is only in the public domain in the US is unwelcome in commons. We want to be the free image repository assisting the free encyclopedia that remains freely licensed.
- Implications are grand because Commons is used in far too many projects. This template may lead to all sorts of legal problems particularly for the secondary users of our content. OLPC and wikireader are merely one of the many other secondary users. This would also be an obstacle to all efforts in establishing a printed copies of content featured from commons.
- We also want to avoid creating future problems for the commons administrators. There are few things that are more annoying than a PD template that doesn't stay PD causing days worth of backlog all of a sudden.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the US. Unlike most of our PD files, I can not name a single country that will provide copyright to these files. We don't know whether this PD template will stay PD, but that is true for most of our PD templates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which implies the law would be passed in not too distant future. And your scenario is something we want to avoid. You are saying we would need to collect offline copies of this content including perhaps OLPC laptops just to keep these images here for a few more years. The implications of this template is far too grand with limited (if any) gain. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't Commons have any version of en:WP:CRYSTAL? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying "where we are essentially paving way for all works made in a country to be uploadable to commons without copyright limitations of any kind". We're not paving anything; Afghanistan has chosen not only to not be a signator of copyright treaties (letting them use our stuff without copyright limitations of any kind), they've chosen not to have an internal copyright law. There's no copyright limitation, by choice of Afghanistan, not ours.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Afghan content is freely distributed beyond U.S. borders. In fact it's freely distributable worldwide. Including *in* Afghanistan. It is more distributable than almost any other PD tag. Yes, it's annoying if a PD template stops being true, but that can happen with *any* PD template. We can't guard against all potential law changes -- just follow the law; that way we delete the minimum required. You're actually suggesting to pre-emptively delete lots of stuff without knowing that it will ever be required that we do so. Furthermore, existing users of works which become re-copyrighted are almost always granted extra rights to mitigate their problems -- often they are permitted to continue using the work in the same manner they had; it's just new uses which will be restricted. For example, in the U.S., we may only have to delete restored works where the owner files an NIE notice with the U.S. Copyright Office. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it -- and there is no guarantee we will ever need to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is not a problem with the template but with image sourcing. If an image is not sufficiently sourced, I guess it should be deleted per COM:PRP. It is the uploader's responsibility to make sure that the correct copyright information is available. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Question Exactly when would a file originating from Afghanistan be allowed here in the opinion of ? When would a file be sufficiently old? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- My main problem is declaring all content from Afghanistan no matter how recent as "public domain" property. This is the case legally for the time being, no question about that but the moment these countries establish copyright and sign the relevant international treaty we will only have problems. I would find it sufficient to consider something in the public domain if the image was published before 1923 and/or authors life + 50 (could be 70) (exceptions may apply of course but on a case by case basis). Why life + 50 years? That is the bare minimum berne convention would require. Countries can go for more but not less. This would eliminate the more recent stuff that is more than likely to be protected once copyright law is established. If URAA establishes a more drastic elimination, we can comply but we would have fewer content to deal with. Mind you if the files are licensed with creative commons or some other compatible free license that is still uploadable to commons without problems. They would forever stay freely licensed that way. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And what if the law is released on day X, and the terms are "Works created from X day on will be protected...". Who says that can not happen? Yes, there may be a bare minimum time of pma, but that minium may be applied to works created after the X date. As the 1923 date in the US, after all. Cambalachero (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have an example case feel free to share it with us. Even if what you say happens, images can simply be undeleted. In the meanwhile we would not be creating a bigger mess by spreading these potential copyright time bombs. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the rule is that anything created (or published?) before joining the Berne Convention may remain under the old copyright term (creation+0 years in Afghanistan's case). This is applied in the United States in several ways:
- Works published before 1923 keep the old term of at most publication+75 years even if this is less than life+50 years.
- Works published between 1923 and 1977 keep the old term of at most publication+95 years even if this is less than life+50 years. In particular, {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} tend to be shorter than life+50 years.
- Under US law, only those works copyrighted in Afghanistan on the URAA date (treaty joining date) would gain copyright in the United States, as long as they have been published. Under EU law, works no longer copyrighted in Afghanistan would be in the public domain per the rule of the shorter term. It would be very possible to grant copyright protection only to those works created (or possibly published) since the treaty joining date. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Simply undeleted?" Locating and undeleting some hundreds of images after they were deleted is anything but simple. I have been though that mess once, and frankly, I won't wish that curse even to my worst enemy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is simple if you maintain a list of the images you delete which you removed. Had you not remove the list and had it be processed properly it would be a lot easier to deal with the handful remaining content for starters. The risk of direct or indirect lawsuits to us or people reusing our content due to copyright violations is the problem here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Simply undeleted?" Locating and undeleting some hundreds of images after they were deleted is anything but simple. I have been though that mess once, and frankly, I won't wish that curse even to my worst enemy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the rule is that anything created (or published?) before joining the Berne Convention may remain under the old copyright term (creation+0 years in Afghanistan's case). This is applied in the United States in several ways:
- If you have an example case feel free to share it with us. Even if what you say happens, images can simply be undeleted. In the meanwhile we would not be creating a bigger mess by spreading these potential copyright time bombs. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And what if the law is released on day X, and the terms are "Works created from X day on will be protected...". Who says that can not happen? Yes, there may be a bare minimum time of pma, but that minium may be applied to works created after the X date. As the 1923 date in the US, after all. Cambalachero (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- My main problem is declaring all content from Afghanistan no matter how recent as "public domain" property. This is the case legally for the time being, no question about that but the moment these countries establish copyright and sign the relevant international treaty we will only have problems. I would find it sufficient to consider something in the public domain if the image was published before 1923 and/or authors life + 50 (could be 70) (exceptions may apply of course but on a case by case basis). Why life + 50 years? That is the bare minimum berne convention would require. Countries can go for more but not less. This would eliminate the more recent stuff that is more than likely to be protected once copyright law is established. If URAA establishes a more drastic elimination, we can comply but we would have fewer content to deal with. Mind you if the files are licensed with creative commons or some other compatible free license that is still uploadable to commons without problems. They would forever stay freely licensed that way. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Afghanistan has not signed a copyright law. It's possible they might, and we may have to delete some works once that happens. But I see no reason to not follow the law, which at the moment (and for Afghanistan's entire existence), which is no copyright law whatsoever. It is not a guarantee they will ever create one, or sign the Berne Convention (those are separate questions). Even if they end up doing so, we don't know when that will happen, and we don't know the scope of the retroactivity (if any). It is no use speculating. It's just like any country which chooses to change copyright law in a retroactive manner -- we grumble, figure out what got re-copyrighted, and delete that. However, the current situation is pretty simple -- anything first published in Afghanistan by an Afghan is PD worldwide -- there is no copyright protection available anywhere for it. I see no reason whatsoever to not follow that -- they have chosen to never have a copyright law at all, which is fine. People have been calling it "inevitable" for years now and it hasn't happened -- nothing is inevitable. They may very, very easily decide that it's better to be able to copy the world's works at will rather than get protection for their own authors -- their neighbor, Iran, has made a similar decision, as has Afghanistan itself for almost a hundred years now. The only reason I can fathom for this DR is to avoid the potential pain of having to delete stuff in the future, but... that's not a good reason to me. We should follow the law, whatever it may be. Any country could decide to make a retroactive copyright law at some point... should we restrict ourselves to 70pma no matter what, in case some 50pma country makes a retroactive law someday? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Until such time as Afghanistan passes a copyright law, there is nothing to discuss here. They may make some law that retroactively makes things that were PD now copyrighted or they may not. Speculating on "they might do XYZ so we have to remove all of our images" is absurd. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator and several participants in this discussion write as if we all accept without question that Afghanistan is on the brink of signing the Berne convention. Some participants have described the current situation as "a loophole" -- as if it were a kind of anomaly, an accident.
The underlying justification for granting intellectual property rights to inventors, composers, authors and photographers is that by allowing them to profit from disseminating their new idea we encourage them to keep disseminating new ideas -- and that the dissemination of new ideas is a good thing.
Not everyone thinks the dissemination of new ideas is a good thing. Sovereign countries get to decide to reward the dissemination of new ideas. Countries where there is insufficient support for the dissemination of new ideas get to continue to decline pass domestic IP laws and get to continue to decline to sign Berne and other international IP laws. That Afghanistan has not signed Berne is not an anomaly, not an accident. Insufficient people who were in a position to pass IP laws in Afghanistan did believed in "progress" -- in the dissemination of new ideas. The Taliban was in power for less than a decade. Political support for the dissemination of new ideas was not present prior to the Taliban taking power. The Taliban has been out of power for over a decade, and sufficient political support has not arisen to pass IP laws.
Many of the Afghan warlords who helped oust the Taliban are almost as conservative as the Taliban, and many of these former warlords are in positions of power now.
ISAF is winding down. Many countries have withdrawn or seriously reduced their troop commitment. Over the last year or so we have learned that serious negotiations are underway to try to broker some kind of peace with the Taliban. Surely everyone here can recognize that these negotiations make IP laws for Afghanistan less likely? Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nearly everyone in Afghanistan are conservative not only the ones you named. The peace deal with Taliban is only aimed at ending the insugency not so Taliban can come back to power. NATO is not showing any sign that they plan to leave from this place anytime soon, they are discussing permanent bases.--Officer (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg's comments. There's not that many Afghan images to worry about. I also have a question. If an Afghan citizen and photojournalist crosses over into neighboring Pakistan to snap pictures with his/her camera, wouldn't PD-Afghanistan apply to those pics after he publishes them inside Afghanistan?--Officer (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Keep the template, I agree with Carl Lindberg's first comment. Template adequately describes why images are PD. However, I'd agree with Stefan4 that there's a usage issue: images uploaded from Flika get checked by someone else after upload. I think it is necessary here. Another possibility would be that anyone using the template would have to give details on how the image meets the 3 criteria. Babakathy (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's "Flika", do you mean Flickr? Note that Flickr is a US web site, so a photo upload to Flickr is presumably treated as a publication in the United States, which gives copyright protection unless published in Afghanistan more than 30 days earlier. Also remember that unpublished works are copyrighted, so if the Flickr upload isn't considered as publication, the photo might get copyright protection as an unpublished photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The wording on the template needs to be changed a little, to make it explain that the work doesn't need to be showing scenes of Afghanistan only in the background. Suppose I stand near the border and take picture which shows scenes of 2 countries then what?--Officer (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I might be wrong, but I believe that the only things which matter are country of first publication, country of residence of the author and country of citizenship of the author and that the country of creation is irrelevant. That said, if it contains a derivative work of someone else's creation, it may be copyrighted as a derivative work. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The wording on the template needs to be changed a little, to make it explain that the work doesn't need to be showing scenes of Afghanistan only in the background. Suppose I stand near the border and take picture which shows scenes of 2 countries then what?--Officer (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's "Flika", do you mean Flickr? Note that Flickr is a US web site, so a photo upload to Flickr is presumably treated as a publication in the United States, which gives copyright protection unless published in Afghanistan more than 30 days earlier. Also remember that unpublished works are copyrighted, so if the Flickr upload isn't considered as publication, the photo might get copyright protection as an unpublished photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 | Proposed close: Kept 8 keep votes and a single user proposing deletion, plus two previous deletion requests closed with clear consensus to keep. Per en:Wikipedia:Snowball clause, we should close this and prevent further drama. ~~~~  Done Closed per proposal. |
- Keep Unlike the situation in Iran, where copyrights exist but are not recognized in the United States, Afghanistan has no copyright law. In the absence of such a law, declaring that works first published in Afghanistan are protected would amount to us writing the laws. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, : clear consensus towards keeping; further, Afghanistan have not signed any agreement yet Blackcat (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
low quality image Akshayindulkar (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sufficient quality to use Bulwersator (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
the picture does not show Nessim Sibony 84.60.32.195 19:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
this picture does *not* show Nessim Sibony 84.60.32.195 19:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I (as uploader) agree, the source (Oberwolfach) now declares the pictures as an unknown person.--Claude J (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.139.62 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:De minimis/fr ~Pyb (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
FOP France. Gaston Broquet (1880 - 1947) Labattblueboy (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Derivative billboard image. The flickr photographer probably doesn't own the rights to the image. Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The image can also be found on the website noted on the billboard itself (look here). Down the page we find the notice: „All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Link and attribution appreciated.“ Maybe the licence has to be changed to Template:Attribution? --Blogotron (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an image of a billboard erected by the Bradley Manning Support Network, so clearly they are willing to release it, as their website confirms. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Blogotron and SlimVirgin; The licensing on the file should be updated to show that it has been released into the public domain by its creators. (http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/supporters-erect-washington-billboard-ahead-of-pending-trial-announcement) Adjwilley (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image released into public domain by its copyright owner. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect likeness... apparently. Topiaryanon (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as a copyvio from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/andrew-lloyd-webber-24299.html, in addition to the personality rights violation per photoshopping. Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned personal artwork with little to no educational merit. SarahStierch (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep A single image for use on user's page is allowed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah despite what deletionist think this picture might be of historical interest for future researchers. They will be able to see that at the very beginning of the 21th century we were having fun drawing stuff in Microsoft Paint :-) Hashar (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Ack! Hashar added this image as a joke after we were chuckling about the image after I nominated it. And actually this does not merit inclusion as read here Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. I'm not going to lose sleep over this, but, when I find things out of scope I nominate them! SarahStierch (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: with {{Userpageimage}} Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
too small (bad quality); no description; no usage Nobelium (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Name is wrong Willy86488 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of all of the other images in Category:Xavi Hernández, this is too small and too blurry to be of use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
dubious " I, the copyright holder of this work" (web resolution) Bulwersator (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Self portrait by en:Georges Malkine, no permission Zolo (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The source is a newspaper from Poland so I think PD-US doesn't apply. It could be PD-Polish but I'm not sure since the photo seems to be outside from Poland and may not have been published in Poland first. Plushy (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not PD-US. Nowości Ilustrowane were published in Kraków which was in Austria back then so it could be PD-Austria, it might also be PD-Polish. Acording to desc in pl.wiki it's 1st Balkan War Plushy (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not PD-US. Nowości Ilustrowane were published in Kraków which was in Austria back then so it could be PD-Austria, it might also be PD-Polish. Plushy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A drawing published in polish newspaper but original source is british Daily Mail, author is unknown so the licence may not be correct Plushy (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Without proper source, no evidence of permisssion, probably copyvio Bulwersator (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
private work of art and persiflage on File:Wappen at st gilgen.png, a village St. Jigen does not exist. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is apparently in Argentina, where there is no FOP for sculpture, so it is an infringement of the sculptor's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If I follow http://www.state.gov/misc/87529.htm#copyright (the copyright page for http://www.usembassy.gov) and hold my cursor over the photo it says "Photo:MINFO". So not a photo created by the embassy, {{PD-USGov}} not applies, not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
British logo. The long arc on the letter "R" which goes below the W and part of the I looks more artistic than the "E" decoration in the Edge logo at COM:TOO#UK, so this is probably copyrighted in the UK. Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, why is this logo licensed under the GPL? I can't find any statement confirming this and it is also an unusual licence for a logo. Stefan4 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Symbol mark of Kururi-Line.JPG
- File:Symbol mark of Kiha-E120 belonging to JR-East Niigata branch.jpg
Possible copyvio & per per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.
As long as I understand, these symbol marks were created by the East Japan Railway Company for Kururi Line and Uetsu Main Line. Although I couldn't find the pricise date of creation, the JR was founded on April 1, 1987. 1987 + 50 ({{PD-Japan}}) = 2037 Takabeg (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Susukino by htby in Sapporo.jpg
- File:Susukino Sapporo.JPG
- File:Susukino by e29616 in Sapporo.jpg
- File:SAPPORO SUSUKINO.JPG
- File:Susukino by notariety in Sapporo.jpg
Possible copyvio per FOP#Japan. This trademark of Nikka Whisky Distilling appeared in 1965. cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glicoman.JPG: Even the trademark of Ezaki Gliko was created in 1922, it was deleted. Takabeg (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious copyright claim FASTILY (TALK) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Flickr - kotekote - glico 2007 IAAF Version.jpg
- File:Flickr - yeowatzup - Dotonbori, Osaka, Japan (1).jpg
- File:Osaka dotonbori canal.JPG
- File:OsakaNeeon.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio per FOP#Japan & per this closing. cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glicoman.JPG. Takabeg (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious copyright claim FASTILY (TALK) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. No es la licencia adecuada. Igual, la tarjeta es de mi propiedad y la impresión es del 1900, no hay problemas de licenciamiento. Cual es la licencia adecuada? Quijav (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." + author: Arnada Argentina tagged as "own work" Bulwersator (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is obvioulsy a cropped photo, not a drawing, so I'd say the license applies. However, we could just make an SVG of this symbol, all the elements are available. Fry1989 eh? 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
dubious "Own work" (created in 1939) Bulwersator (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed the "own work" for "I scanned this image from magazine "Leoplán" (1939)".
- It's ok? --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is still problem with "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" - this image is not copyrighted by you but by copyright holder of original image (therefore we cannot keep it without evidence that he/she released it under free licence) or copyright expired (why?) Bulwersator (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission FASTILY (TALK) 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
dubious "Own work" (created in 1949) Bulwersator (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the "own work" for "I scanned this image fron the magazine Leoplán (1949)".
It's ok? --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is still problem with "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" - this image is not copyrighted by you but by copyright holder of original image (therefore we cannot keep it without evidence that he/she released it under free licence) or copyright expired (why?) Bulwersator (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No Source/evidence of permission FASTILY (TALK) 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
More than likely copyvio from http://kds-entertainment.de/peter_grimberg Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not PD-US. Nowości Ilustrowane were published in Kraków which was in Austria back then so it could be PD-Austria, it might also be PD-Polish. Plushy (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Right: PD-Polish, published before 1994./ opublikowane przed 1994,brak autora.Zsotawić (Ricardo77 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not PD-US. Nowości Ilustrowane were published in Kraków which was in Austria back then so it could be PD-Austria, it might also be PD-Polish. Plushy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Right - PD-Polish, published before 1994
- Except it wasn't published in Poland.Plushy (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not PD-US. Nowości Ilustrowane were published in Kraków which was in Austria back then so it could be PD-Austria, it might also be PD-Polish. Plushy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Right: PD-Polish, published before 1994./ Rzeczywiście: opublikowane przed 1994,brak autora.Zostawić podobnie jak inne zdjecia rakiety fotograficznej.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A scan of newspaper publish in Austria in 1912, it's marked as CC-0 but I'm not sure if it's PD, the drawing may not be. Plushy (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Right: PD-Polish, published before 1994.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate image of File:P40e.jpg, lesser quality though coloration is so not exact duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. As per COM:SCOPE, "there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No information about publication, no evidence was published before 1923. —innotata 00:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Published in Popular Astronomy, vol. XVI, No. 4 (Whole No. 154), plate VI; April 1908. Also included (better reproduced) in the "Pamphlets about Charles A. Young" available at Google books, again from Popular Astronomy.
- Other nice images of Young:
- [2], published 1905 in Hector MacPherson, Jr.: Astronomers of to-day and their work; Gall & Inglis, London & Edinburgh. If deemed an anonymous work, that one might be even suitable for the Commons.
- File:PSM V67 D292 Charles A Young.png.
- Lupo 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Enough evidence that this image was published before 1923. Trijnsteltalk 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A review on whether or not {{PD-textlogo}} applies is needed. Leyo 09:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Info Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Fred Wolf logo.svg is a related discussion. --Leyo 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion at other DR, too complex to be ineligible for copyright. Wknight94 talk 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be proper license of the author (or his heir). Existing object, it is not out of scope. Julo (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, object is not out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The object in photo is marked as a property of the author but it's not clearly stated that he is the author of the object. Plushy (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Wizardman 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploader's request. No permission from the photographer of man Kobac (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am surprised at the Flickr licensing because of that. --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per flickr Bulwersator (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not the uploader's work, makes no sense for them to request deletion. Is correctly licensed by author at Flickr, no license laundering is apparent. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The licence template is for photographs and this is a drawing so it probably is wrong. Also the the text under the drawing may be still copyrighted. Plushy (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"ponieważ wedle Art. 3 prawa autorskiego z 29 marca 1926 i Art. 2 prawa autorskiego z 10 lipca 1952 fotografie polskich autorów (lub które ukazały się po raz pierwszy w Polsce lub równocześnie w Polsce i za granicą) opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia prawa autorskiego przed zmianą prawa 23 maja 1994 nie podlegają ochronie – należy domniemywać, że są własnością publiczną." grafika spełnia te wymogi
- Mowa jest o fotografiach, to jest rysunek i na dodatek tekst.Plushy (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
To się nazywa talmudyzm i kazuistyka...Nawet nie wiemy kto jest autorem tekstu. Grafika nawet gdyby była z roku 953 rozumiem że tez podlega ochronie.... (83.27.251.61 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: Significant doubt. The law cited to establish PD status only applies to photographs, and no one has raised an alternative justification for its PD status. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The file is marked as CC-0 but no reason is given why it's PD. The source is a polish newspaper from Kraków but in 1910 Kraków was in Austria after third partition of Poland. PD-Polish probably doesn't apply. Plushy (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kraków was in Austria-Hungary - and this state doesn't exist (Ricardo77 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
- Well, that's true. But just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's auto~maticaly public domain and we can't keep files we're not 100% sure of.Plushy (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Significant doubt, not effectively contested. A 1910 work may still be in copyright in modern-day Austria. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
it is a deriative work from non-free content because it is photo of 3D object, and there is no any permission for its free use in source; anyway we have free file at the same theme. Dmitry89 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Чем же различается это изображение от (например) этих ? Там рукописи здесь скульптура ? --Taron Saharyan (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Тем, что рукописи это плоское изображение, фото или скан которых не является оригинальной работой и не создает новых авторских прав, а скульптура это трехмерный объект, фотография которой является оригинальной творческой работой, что создает новые авторские права. Dmitry89 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Подробнее см. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag Dmitry89 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Ну а если использовать лицензию "несвободный файл" ? Это важнейший артефакт, а свободного фото нет.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Anahit Stamp.jpg - вот свободный файл. Dmitry89 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Photograph of 3D work not available under a free license or PD. Copyright status of photograph not effectively contested. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. The text is too simple to be eligible for copyright: {{PD-textlogo}}. The logo might be too simple to be eligible for copyright - the wavy thing to the right of Hattiesburg is indeed kind of wavy. The picture on the left and little weather icon on the right are eligible for copyright. I'm nominating it for deletion rather than cropping so that we can discuss the main logo and whether it should be deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The File should be deleted from Commons. The image should have been uploaded in English Wikipedia as a Non-free media file with non-free use rationale. Woodlot (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Wer ist der Fotograf? Wenn starb er? (siehe Lizenzvorlage). / Who is the photographer? When did he die? (see license template) Saibo (Δ) 23:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Saibo, the photographer is unknown, there is no name on the back of the card. It's a postcard from the private photo collection of my grandfather's heritage. Hope this helps to keep the file. Greetings! -- Kdkeller (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (Uploader)
- Thanks for your comment, Kdkeller. However, the fact that it is from your grandfather's heritage does not help unless he is the photographer. If the photographer died after 1941 the photo would still be copyrighted - highly likely that this is the case, don't you think? So we cannot keep this image in my opinion. --Saibo (Δ) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we'll have to delete it, I couln't find the photographer. It's a pity. Next time I will search the photographer before I upload the photo. Thanks for your work on the Commons! -- Kdkeller (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Kdkeller. However, the fact that it is from your grandfather's heritage does not help unless he is the photographer. If the photographer died after 1941 the photo would still be copyrighted - highly likely that this is the case, don't you think? So we cannot keep this image in my opinion. --Saibo (Δ) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep That is a scanned photo Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no explanation as to why it is copyrighted in the source country. There is no source proving that this photo has been published or that it isn't anonymous, so it might be copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since creation. Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it's from tsarist russia (pre-1917); looks like a sergey prokudin-gorsky image. easily PD Lx 121 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Es una fotografía
La imagen presentada no es una pintura o un dibujo, sino una fotografía convertida en tarjeta postal de inicios del siglo XX. Ver nota en http://www.mapuche.info/?kat=6&sida=2533 --Rec79 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is a photograph . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Photographs by Ilya Otkalo
[edit]Files in Category:Photo-moskva.ru
[edit]Site of the PHOTO Moscow - photos of Moscow, free pictures. The project of Otkalo Ilya. All photos placed on this site, it is authorised to overwork, correct and develop in any (even in commercial) the purposes under condition of instructions of authorship in the form of the reference to this site, but only for placing on the Internet. It corresponds to the licence Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.
- File:1 1st Shchipkovsky Lane, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Beregovaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Butyrsky Val Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Danilovsky Val Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Ganetskogo Square, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Partiyny Lane, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Simonovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1 Trofimova Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1-1 Novodanilovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:10 Trofimova Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:10-2 Nagatinskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:11 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:11 Bolshaya Tulskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:12 Aviakonstruktora Mikoyana Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:13 Bolshaya Tulskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:13-1 Alabyana Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:13A Kolomensky Passage, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:14 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:15 Bolshaya Tulskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:15 Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:15 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:16 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:16-3 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:17 Bolshaya Tulskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:1A Golovinskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:2 Bolshaya Tulskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:2 Viktorenko Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:22 Andropova Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:23 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:23 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:23-15 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:23-5 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:25 Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:25A Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia - 001.jpg
- File:25A Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia - 002.jpg
- File:25A-11 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:26 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia (right).jpg
- File:26 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:26-9 Smolensky Boulevard, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:27 Andropova Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:27 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:28 Prokhladnaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:3 Elektrichesky Lane, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:3 Kholodilny Lane, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:33 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:33-35 Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:34 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:37 Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia - 002.jpg
- File:37 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:37-5 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:37-9 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:38 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:3rd Peschanaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:4 Kolomensky Passage, Moscow, Russia - 002.jpg
- File:4 Masterkova Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:4-1 Vostochnaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:41 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:42 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:46 Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:5 Butyrsky Val Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:52 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:6 Lesnaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:6 Pavlovskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:64 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:6A Danilovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:7 Ivankovskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:7 Khlebozavodsky Passage, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:7 Kronshtadsky Boulevard, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:7-2 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:72 Lyusinovskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:74 Mytnaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:8 Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:8 Novodanilovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:8-5 Podolskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:80 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:81 Zelyony Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:9 Luganskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:94 Dubininskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Andropova Prospekt, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Avtozavodskaya Square, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Bauman Moscow State Technical University.jpg
- File:Bolshaya Gruzinskaya and 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya Streets, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Danilovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Eduard Streltsov Stadium, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:KaplanLenin.jpg
- File:Kashirskaya.jpg
- File:Kashirskoye and Varshavskoe Highways, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Kolomenskaya, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Krestyanskaya Zastava Square, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Krutitskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Leningradskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Moscow Metallurgical Plant.jpg
- File:Moscow South River Terminal.jpg
- File:Moskovskaya akademia vodnogo transporta.jpg
- File:Nagatinskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Novodanilovskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Novopeschanaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Panoramic view from Novospassky Bridge, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Panoramic view of Khimki Reservoir, Moscow, Russia - 001.jpg
- File:Panoramic view of Khimki Reservoir, Moscow, Russia - 002.jpg
- File:Panoramic view of Khimki Reservoir, Moscow, Russia - 003.jpg
- File:Red Square (summer).jpg
- File:Red Square (winter).jpg
- File:Saykina Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Serpukhovskaya Zastava Square, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Serpukhovsky Val Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Slavyanskaya Square, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Stekloagregat.jpg
- File:Trofimova Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Tsaritsyno, Moscow, Russia - 001.jpg
- File:Tsaritsyno, Moscow, Russia - 002.jpg
- File:Vakhtangov Theatre, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Varshavskoye Highway, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:VDNH From Kosmos.jpg
- File:Victory Park on Poklonnaya Hill, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:View from Nagatinskaya Embankment, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Volokolamskoye and Leningradskoye Highways, Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Вид из Московского государственного музея-заповедника Коломенское.jpg
- File:Ленинградское шоссе в районе метро «Войковская».jpg
- File:Москва-река в районе метро «Нагатинская».jpg
- File:Перервинский гидроузел.jpg
- File:Промышленная зона АМО ЗИЛ.jpg
- Template:Photo-moskva.ru
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Vesveter.ru
[edit]Автор не возражает против публикации отдельных фото в интернете (но не целых статей) без специального разрешения с обязательным указанием гиперссылки на сайт (лицензия Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 CC-BY), кроме панорамных фото (тех, в подписях к которым указано "Панорама" или "Фото панорама"). Если Вы нашли фотографии, которые хотели бы использовать в рекламе, в печатной продукции и в любых других местах, кроме интернет-сайтов, необходимо получить разрешение у автора сайта, в разделе "Контакты" указаны координаты.
- File:Holland-Amsterdam-WaterHomes.jpg
- File:Karpaty-Landscape.jpg
- File:Norway-Alesund.jpg
- File:Norway-Bergen.jpg
- File:Norway-Hardangerfjord.jpg
- File:Norway-Oslo-Akershus.jpg
- File:Norway-Oslo-Storting.jpg
Debate (Photographs by Ilya Otkalo)
[edit]Permission for placing on the Internet only. We can't use them. Kobac (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep From what i understood on Russian Wikipedia, the author has uploaded these under a free licence. The author has the right to then distribute under different conditions somewhere else, this doesn't invalidate CC-BY. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but we can't use, for example, files under CC-BY-ND. If the author didn't accept one of principles of CC-BY (I mean publications in the press) files wasn't licensed under CC-BY, even he wrote another information on his site. Kobac (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can take a picture and upload image, similar to File:11 Avtozavodskaya Street, Moscow, Russia.jpg, so you can delete it. I live near this station. And 6 pictures more, at least.--Soul Train (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can also make some photos, similar to these:
--Brateevsky (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the last batch of seven images as they are clearly covered by an NC release -- yes, the note mentions CC-BY (without NC) but then the next sentence clearly adds the NC restriction. I'm not sure what to do with the rest. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The terms of the website seem to be incompatible with the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Deleting per COM:PCP FASTILYs (TALK) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Files from User:Maahmaah
[edit]User seems to know nothing about copyright and several picts of him have no metadata or they seem to be derivative works. Considering the poorness, which deprive them of *any educational purpose* in quality of most of these images I'd suggest to delete the following images:
- File:MFA gate.jpg likely to be a PD-Iran, but not evidences given
- File:Mitra-sun.jpg is it eligible for PD-Old?
- File:آجرکوره.jpg internet-quality picture with no exif, likely to be a copyvio
- File:Koore_Ajor.jpg © on Flickr no exifs
- File:Jaihani_map.JPG extremely low quality from an unknown source
- File:Old map.JPG per above
- File:PERSIAN EMPIRE ARABIC MAP.jpg copyvio
- File:Al khaleej al faresi.JPG awful quality derivative work from an unknown source
- File:PARSSEA.JPG low quality derivative work from an unknown source
- File:Persian gulf - Persian sea.JPG idem
Please note the picts are widely used among wikis because they were added by the uploader himself.
- Related deletion proposal
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Achaemenid Cyrus The Great Stamp Cyrus Perspolis.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map of persia.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qala zibad war of 12 rokh last Persian sassanid.jpg.
- Delete
Most of them had been deleted before but User:Maahmaah has uploaded them again!Sorry, I was wrong here. They had not been deleted before, but they are obviously not his own work or free, and I still support the deletion. Americophile 12:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Several are possibly PD-Old, but clearly not "own work" as claimed and the uploader has had 4 months to fix them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)