Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/03/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![66 File:"Vanitas" Still Life.JPG](#File:"Vanitas"_Still_Life.JPG){kind=link}
Some pages are not fully scanned. VadimVMog (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion (use {{Speedy}} next time) Anatoliy (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.wenkewho.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/l.jpg McZusatz (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as obvious copyvio (source site says: © 2011 by WENKEWHO). Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio. User is blocked on enwiki for sockpuppetry. Яндекс (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: :Speedy closed, no further action. No evidence to support accusation. Reporter known xwiki abuse. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vituzzu as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the image has a clear © mark Sreejith K (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- This file already has a valid cc-by-sa license when it was uploaded. The license was already released by the copyright holder himself through his website (www.circball.com/home (bottom page)using the cc-by-sa license. Even though the file has a copyright notation on it, CCWiki's instructions says to leave the copyright notation intact. Not sure if you were aware of this when it was deleted. Here the quote from CCWiki: "If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices intact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work." '(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users). Therefore this file ought to be undeleted. The uploader already had a valid license through cc-by-sa released by the copyright holder himself, despite a clear © mark. 173.55.4.63 03:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: By User:Zscout370 The website is CC but the image itself has a copyright notice at the very bottom. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Irish author died in 1957. not in PD yet. Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD yet. Kaldari (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably not the uploader's work - too small image - from the web? 188.104.115.9 18:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Copyvio as the rest of uploaded of this user:
None with exif or metadata. Portero uploaded immediately when I told him Entrenamiento was copyvio. Very unlikely own work. --Andrea (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- And again!!! * File:AndresFernandezMoreno.jpg --Andrea (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio. One file stolen from Marca, http://www.marca.com/futbol/equipos/levante.html, the rest taken from other websites too. Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
scaled down duplicate of File:Paolo_Cirio's_portrait.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation Utku Tanrivere (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000 Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www6.0zz0.com/2010/11/25/09/796857627.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://fudesar.com.co/rapiya/web/images/sandwiches/big/03.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VwCcRa0muZQ/Twjdw7T7MYI/AAAAAAAAGBQ/comxLVz2pHQ/s1600/SANY0397.JPG McZusatz (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a US statue from 1985. No FOP. Stefan4 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:FOP#United_States, FOP only applies to buildings PierreSelim (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a 2004 statue in the United States. No FOP. Stefan4 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've move an image very similar to it to en.Wikipedia with the appropriate (I believe) fair use rational requirements. en:File:King of Kings Statue.jpg. Let me know if I need to change or do something different. Also, delete per nom. ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:FOP#United_States, FOP only applies to buildings PierreSelim (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a 2004 statue in the United States. No FOP. Stefan4 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This may be correct. How do newspapers qualify to use photos of the sculpture? Is there any fair use justification - particularly because of the lightning strike? Would a smaller resolution image qualify as fair use? Regards. Greg5030 (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Newspapers depend on fair use, but Commons doesn't allow fair use. Other web sites, such as Wikipedia, might allow it under a fair use claim. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved it to en.Wikipedia with the appropriate (I believe) fair use rational requirements. en:File:King of Kings Statue.jpg. Let me know if I need to change or do something different. Also, this should be deleted per nom. ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:FOP#United_States, FOP only applies to buildings PierreSelim (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, source unclear and out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Pupil tried to create a page in ruWP about himself like in social net using this photo as avatar. Anyway at the background we can see the work of others authors, and it is copyrighted, so license is also doubtful. Dmitry89 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work Lymantria (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This location is called the Rapley Anticline, near Mexican Hat, Utah. It is not in New Mexico. Dlarsonarts (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Wrong naming is not a valid reason for deletion Lymantria (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, no educational value, appears to be out of scope. Sarah (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Another, low quality, out of scope image. The description says it all "strip photos". Sarah (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And again..Another, low quality, out of scope image. The description says it all "strip photos". Sarah (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission, out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission, out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission, out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission, out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
no author, no source, incorrect license, no probable use – JBarta (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 08:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 08:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Is an educational content given? GeorgHH • talk 08:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Cd-Promo, unknown band. Out of scope. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Is an educational content given? GeorgHH • talk 08:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete nope. Cd-Promo, unknown band. Out of scope. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Is an educational content given? GeorgHH • talk 08:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 09:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Small unreadable screenshot Funfood ␌ 19:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000 Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Funfood ␌ 19:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000 Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons doesn't is facebook or Fotolog, and then, there doesn't can insert user private images. PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons doesn't is facebook or Fotolog, and then, there doesn't can insert user private images. PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Private picture - out of scope Lymantria (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
copyvio (Pictures used by the press are not PD). McZusatz (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Nassau was never a hospital ship. This is an entirely speculative creation of the uploader and, as such, is out of scope for Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by Nom. COH hopes to make it a hospital ship. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a modification of a possibly copyrighted file. The person who claims this would be own work did surely not photograph the ship 91.57.91.212 01:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I did not photograph this ship. This image was provided to COH (Coalition of Hope Foundation) by the engineers at Huntington-Ingalls shipyards and modified by them to represent USS Nassau in COH service. Huntington Ingalls of Pascagoula MS built USS Nassau and her sisters, it is possible that Huntington-Ingalls did shoot the original photo, but I cannot confirm that. What information do I need to collect to satisfy Wiki requirements to retain the image? Please advise, thanks ... G H Smith (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, we must assume the image itself is copyrighted, as you are not the author and it is no US Navy image. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment same applies with
, isn't it? --High Contrast (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
was created using my model in Google Sketchup, rendered in Kerkythea. That one is my own work. As for the aerial image of File:Nassau converted to COH.jpg, I'm waiting on word from Huntington-Ingalls shipyards on publication rights. Recall that their media team created that image for the foundation. G H Smith (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted. INeverCry 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 | Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons. |
Inconsistent with the educational purpose of Commons and Wikimedia — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is valid satire, and is in use on a userpage. Does this DR also include File:Russia can into space.jpg? Which is also in use on a userpage. Engage with editors like Elen attempted at en:User_talk:Russavia#Polandball_can_not_into_Wikipedia.3F, instead of emailing backwards and forwards between yourselves trying to delete things you don't like, and actually don't understand. russavia (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep your fantasies about email to yourself, Russavia. This particular image serves no purpose but to disparage a group of Wikipedia editors. As such, it doesn't belong on Commons. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please answer the question. Does this DR also include File:Russia can into space.jpg? russavia (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the deletion request. Does it mention File:Russia can into space.jpg? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, so you only want to delete the Polandball one? Hmmmm..... russavia (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the deletion request. Does it mention File:Russia can into space.jpg? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please answer the question. Does this DR also include File:Russia can into space.jpg? russavia (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep your fantasies about email to yourself, Russavia. This particular image serves no purpose but to disparage a group of Wikipedia editors. As such, it doesn't belong on Commons. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image illustrates a large number of typical Polandball-related memes and phrases, as explained in its description. They were specifically concentrated in one illustration to serve educational purposes. It has nothing to do with any groups of Wikipedia editors. The story develops along the typical Polandball stereotypes, and that's why the balls assume their typical roles. In case that makes everyone happy, we can make more countryball Wikipedia cartoons, in which other countryballs are mocked - see Russia for the start. GreyHood Talk 03:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Greyhood, I think the plan was to make more Countryball cartoons anyway. Just to clarify that your creating of more cartoons isn't in response to this DR, but was rather the intent all along. russavia (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the Polandball article could do with few more countryballs, and I wanna all the main countryballs be properly illustrated. Why the first cartoon was about Polandball - well, Polandball is the supreme countryball! GreyHood Talk 04:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Greyhood, I think the plan was to make more Countryball cartoons anyway. Just to clarify that your creating of more cartoons isn't in response to this DR, but was rather the intent all along. russavia (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Satire that is properly licensed, is an example of a common meme and is in use. --LauraHale (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Inside project scope, copyrights are OK. Wikimedia Commons doesn't contain only educational content. And it's funny! ;) Herr Kriss (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please see COM:D#Out of scope. "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is out of scope. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please also note that the above editor is Polish and finds it funny, and his quoting of COM:SCOPE is correct. Commons:SCOPE#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project states "but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project is allowed." It is in use on a personal user page on enwp, and is part of a planned expansion of a satircal look at nationalistic editing on Wikipedia by way of a notable internet meme. Commons should not be used to bypass discussions on other projects; if you have a problem with its use on another project, you should discuss it there, not here. russavia (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please see COM:D#Out of scope. "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is out of scope. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, unencyclopedic (not used in any article as of this moment), offensive. That's not enough? PS. The claim for this being encyclopedic and in-scope rests on the w:Polandball article which is considered for deletion on en wiki: en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polandball. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, racist, offensive and Commons:D#Out_of_scope. Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. --Nug (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete forthwith - racist, used to Poland-bash. Any use in an article in the future will lead to accusations of OR - since it's a user's take on the meme and can be challenged.193.0.107.147 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The fact is that these votes attract an innacurate number of those seeking to censor Wikipedia because the censorship-minded are inherently most passionate in their beliefs. I don't care for certain lewd illustrations on Wikipedia, many political statements here and by dozens of other things but I never vote to delete because my national pride gets hurt. This cartoon has multiple purposes:) it's satirical, educational and political insightfulness all in one, presented humoursly - this means it has a place here. 74.190.0.35 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Textbook example (Polish flag being sucked into a toilet) of an attempt to arouse animosity on a "Muhammad image in cartoon" level. Violates the WMF stated "Principle of Least Astonishment" to an extraordinary extent (this is a strong policy-based argument) - on the level (sophomoric at best) of a cartoon of Muhammad being sucked into a toilet as far as I can tell. Offensive images designed to arounse animus do not belong on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all of its type (unless in use on another project, not including userspace; where such uses are subject to current deletion discussions, we can wait for those to conclude) - self-created artwork based on an internet meme is not within project scope (not educational) until proven otherwise. This is what Commons:Alternative outlets is for - in this case, deviantArt. Rd232 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your reasoning here Rd232 is invalid. Userspace/Wikipedia space is able to have Commons hosted images used on them. Also, there is ru:Polandball which isn't under any discussion, and there is also the de:Polandball article, which looks like being kept. russavia (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reasoning is perfectly correct, thank you: COM:PS states An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project... Legitimate use on other projects overrides Commons' views of educational use, but use in userspace does not. Now, you created "Polandball" articles on de.wp and en.wp, and Greyhood (creator of the file) created the ru.wp one. I don't believe the file should be used in any of those, because it is a user-created artwork which lacks sourcing to show that it accurately depicts what the meme is about, even assuming that the meme is important enough that depicting it is legitimately educational, which is not proven. For the same reason, it is not "educational" for Commons' purposes. But, as I said, if projects choose to use it in mainspace despite its unsuitability, then Commons must enable them to do so. Rd232 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your reasoning here Rd232 is invalid. Userspace/Wikipedia space is able to have Commons hosted images used on them. Also, there is ru:Polandball which isn't under any discussion, and there is also the de:Polandball article, which looks like being kept. russavia (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep; it's a satire of nationalist agenda-driven editing, and it's making fun of the editors who wish to push their nationalistic POV, not an entire nation. And a few Commons users don't speak for an entire country. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Deletion requests are not decided by voting. Please, everyone, speak to the COM:D arguments raised in this discussion. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's a usage to keep such kind of humour on Commons, for exemple we have categories such as Category:French Wikipedia humor: it's sometime lame and not educational (poneys, kkk guys saying there is no cabale, etc.). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- As the name suggests, Category:French Wikipedia humor and things like it are basically "internal" to Wikimedia and its projects (and largely not used in mainspace), so by convention those don't need to be educational. The Polandballs relate to matters external Wikimedia, and so the "educational" test applies. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is an illustration of Polandball (educational) with a bit of Wikipedia satire (internal). Those who consider it educational may use it for educational puproses, those who consider it "internal", may use it internally and not in the main space. Why these two aspects should necessarily be divided? GreyHood Talk 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is an illustration of Polandball (educational) - It's not "an illustration of Polandball", it is (or claims to be) a Polandball. It is not a documentation of an internet meme, it is a form of that internet meme. And it's not proven that this original Polandball adequately represents the meme, or that if it did that this would be educational (unless the file is used on another project, which overrides all this discussion). Basically, if we allow this as generally educational, then we allow Commons to be used to host any internet memes which involve original user-generated artwork, because the artwork could be theoretically used to illustrate an article about that meme. That is not what Commons is for. Rd232 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is an illustration of Polandball (educational) with a bit of Wikipedia satire (internal). Those who consider it educational may use it for educational puproses, those who consider it "internal", may use it internally and not in the main space. Why these two aspects should necessarily be divided? GreyHood Talk 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- As the name suggests, Category:French Wikipedia humor and things like it are basically "internal" to Wikimedia and its projects (and largely not used in mainspace), so by convention those don't need to be educational. The Polandballs relate to matters external Wikimedia, and so the "educational" test applies. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – 1) It is useful and accurate commentary on Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia history. Has multiple uses in "Wikipedia:" and user spaces. 2) The image accurately depicts the style, content and humor of the Polandball meme.
- It has been suggested that this file be deleted and instead the Polandball / countryball meme be illustrated by files that "make fun" of other nations, for example File:Russia can into space.jpg. Having extensively studied the source material I can state that Russia can into space does not accurately reflect the meme. In countryballs Polandball is the sole loserball, with the exception of Estoniaball. As a general observation it may be stated that most Internet hate speech is targeted at Russia, while a large part of internet's humor is targeted at Russia's enemies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "useful"? how, if it isn't accurate? "accurate"? prove it. Currently the file has no sourcing, no explicit claims to accuracy, and is merely user-generated original artwork, which is out of scope for Commons. Rd232 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- How would I "prove" a freely licensed map created by a Commons editor is accurate? I would have to study sources, i.e. other copyrighted maps on the same subject. I would then have to look for similarities and differences. Even then I could not prove anything. I could only state my WP:OR but educated opinion that the map is accurate. This is what I have done in this case. I can state that the cartoon is an accurate description of Polandball. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly educational to illustrate the type of image and text of a Polandball UG cartoon. The standard for browser illustrations is to illustrate the Wikipedia homepage. In the same way we should use Wikipedia in user generated joke illustrations. "How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?" "A Wikipedian, a nun and a physicist walked into a bar..." "Knock, knock. Who's there? Wiki.." well you get the idea. Rich Farmbrough, 02:01 3 April 2012 (GMT).
Comment Commons:SCOPE states "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The fact that User:Russavia was given a 6 month block and indefinitely topic banned for posting this image on his user page[1], confirms this image was created for the purposes of attacking other Wikipedia editors. --Nug (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article using the file was also deleted - en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball, so that the file is no longer in use in mainspace. Rd232 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I can advise that a Deletion Review of the article will be taking place. Additionally, the article still exists on dewp and ruwp, and I am still working on getting the article translated into about 6 or 7 further different languages. russavia (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think Russavia was blocked and topic-banned for posting the image on his userpage, which considerably undermines the argument.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Polandball cartoon on his userpage was certainly part of it. This was described in admin discussion leading up to the block/topic ban as "nothing but trolling", "deliberate political goading", and as "not political satire, it was a specific accusation that Polish Wikipedia editors are disruptive sockmasters." (comments from 3 different admins). Rd232 (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. The interaction ban violation warranted a two week ban, which User:Volunteer Marek received, however posting the image on his user page earned Russavia an additional five and a half months block and an indefinite topic ban from EE articles, including Russian aviation and Vladimir Putin. Such a heavy draconian sanction concretely demonstrates the consensus that this is an attack image used to goad a number of Wikipedians. Hence it is out of scope. --Nug (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how the ban of a user in English Wikipedia shows that the image uploaded by a different user is out of scope on Commons. It can very well be out of scope, I do not know, but this is certainly not a valid argument. It is also not clear for me from that discussion that this is the image which triggered the half-year block. I read it more like a sentiment "We do not want to hear of this guy again", which may or may not be related to the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The comments I quoted are specifically about the use of that image. But ultimately this is about the entire Category:Polandball, not one image. It would have been better if the DR had been about the entire category in the first place; I'm not sure if we should change it now, or make a new DR. Rd232 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, paranoia and inability to read on en:WP should not affect commons. There is no suggestion of sock-puppetery, in the cartoon, simply Polandball (a fictional character - there is no such person in real life) has been using Britabll's netbook to "vandalise of Wikipedia" <revert><revert><revert>. It would make as much sense to claim that the cartoon was attacking British Wikipedia editors for employing Eastern Europeans to do menial tasks while they chomp on biscuits and sip tea. 90% of the humour of Polandball cartoons is directed at the creators themselves, in this case, for example, the "ROROROROR" of the rocket, the drawing style, the type face (which is always either hand written or made to look primitive). Because Polandball is anonynmous and ephemeral UGC , the only way to illustrate it is either to have Wikimedians create the content or find a Polandballer who is willing to release content under CC-By-SA. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02 4 April 2012 (GMT).
- Indeed. The interaction ban violation warranted a two week ban, which User:Volunteer Marek received, however posting the image on his user page earned Russavia an additional five and a half months block and an indefinite topic ban from EE articles, including Russian aviation and Vladimir Putin. Such a heavy draconian sanction concretely demonstrates the consensus that this is an attack image used to goad a number of Wikipedians. Hence it is out of scope. --Nug (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Polandball cartoon on his userpage was certainly part of it. This was described in admin discussion leading up to the block/topic ban as "nothing but trolling", "deliberate political goading", and as "not political satire, it was a specific accusation that Polish Wikipedia editors are disruptive sockmasters." (comments from 3 different admins). Rd232 (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of how you figure Polandball using Britball's netbook isn't implying something underhanded on Polandball's part, particularly in the context of being excluded from WP... the key issue is the only way to illustrate it is either to have Wikimedians create the content or find a Polandballer who is willing to release content under CC-By-SA. Assuming that Polandball is a topic that qualifies as educational, then illustrating it must be done as illustration for any topic is done. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it documents things. To use an illustration created by a Wikimedian, it must be adequately demonstrated to document the thing it purports to document. It cannot be wholly original - that would be fail en:WP:OR and en:WP:V. Suppose half-a-dozen Wikimedians create competing versions - how do we decide between them for the article if it's genuinely somehow OK for this article to throw those policies out of the window for this ever-so-special article? ... all of which is about Wikipedia, but if the images can't legitimately be used to illustrate the Wikipedia article, then they don't have an educational purpose, and don't belong on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Explanation of allusions in the cartoon
- In the description I write: A Polandball cartoon, which utilizes typical Polandball submemes: Britball with top hat, monocle and tea; "Poland strong", "minerals", "Poland cannot into space"; Polandball cleaning the Britball's toilet.
- "Poland cannot into space" mentioned in these sources [2] (note that this source is authored by en:Wojciech Orliński - the article created by Piotrus who voted delete in the discussion above), [3], in these cartoons [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] this nice animation and many many others. The “X cannot into Y” became a Polandball related meme itself). [15]
- For the rest, check the collection of images here.
- Britball with top hat, monocle and tea - [16] [17], [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and many more.
- Polandball image [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] and many more.
- "Poland strong" - A brilliant Polish work [33] [34]
- "minerals" - [35] [36] [37]
- Polandball cleaning the Britball's toilet - [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] and more.
- I've reproduced as much Polandball submemes and conventions as possible in one cartoon. Hope you appreciate this.
- Re: "Suppose half-a-dozen Wikimedians create competing versions" - so far it is not the case, and it is most certainly not a problem anyway, so long as they upload as a new image, instead of overwriting. GreyHood Talk 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There are two acusations against this file: 1. Isn't educational; and 2. Is ofensive. Regarding 1, lets read the Project scope policy: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose (...) if it is in use, that is enough." And this file is in use. Regarding 2. let's see COM:CENSOR: "Commons is not censored, and does quite legitimately include content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. ". Therefore, I see no reason to delete this file. Béria Lima msg 13:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Polish Historian Hystrix (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: within project scope and could be used in sk:Milan Vavro. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:1127525 milan-vavro-karikaturista-smrt.jpg for a related DR. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:1127525 milan-vavro-karikaturista-smrt.jpg for a related DR. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: within project scope and I've added it to sk:Milan Vavro. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milan vavro.jpg for a related DR. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milan vavro.jpg for a related DR. Mathonius (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Official soroity logo. GrapedApe (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Contested speedy deletion. Reason for deletion - objection. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Assume good faith Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Smells flickrwashing. Please search the original image on Flickr by using the tags "Pindad". Яндекс (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- R u doing an DR so we search for u on Flicker? If u have an evidence then plz tell us that otherwise the file remains on Commons.--Sanandros (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Smells flickwashing, again. http://www.flickr.com/photos/35636107@N06/3351187704/ Участник (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that sounds better--Sanandros (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted- The flickr photo was taken on March 13, 2009 much it before was uploaded here. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
not own work McZusatz (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: screenshot of a television programme. I've added the {{Copyvio}} template. Mathonius (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
According to [44], this image is "stolen from a Japanese AV model website (and is cropped to remove the woman's face)". -mattbuck (Talk) 08:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
![[44]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cleavage.jpg&curid=2599069&diff=68870140&oldid=39994129&rcid=70055382){kind=link}
- A Commons user has sent an email, also believing this to be a copyright violation. See Ticket:2012050610002946 for more information. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I say delete based on the precautionary principle added to the fact that it is a rubbish picture anyway. QU TalkQu 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor quality image, leading to assume the OTRS is correct. COM:PRP is applying here russavia (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Well intended, but I'm not convinced, that the depiction of non-free works in the foreground iscovered by de minimis. h-stt !? 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could we maybe upload a cropped version of the photo without the books? Would it be OK, then?--Kippelboy (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Without the books the image is fine. --h-stt !? 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright infringement/license not from owner: http://www.scottevest.com/media/img/img_scott-jordan.jpg JFHJr (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Further note: the SPA uploader previously submitted a very similar, or perhaps identical, copyrighted image of this subject on Wikipedia. It was deleted. See here. JFHJr (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyrights Jakbu (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: non-free media, like en:File:Tekken TT2.jpg, are not allowed on Commons. Mathonius (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Mathonius (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Only used by, now blocked en:user:EGICMMI attempting to use Wikipedia as a free host. Suggest delete all other Special:Contributions/EGICMMI. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to official version File:Wappen Aarau.svg Perhelion (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Indorsement: the other seams traced by hand (not really exactly). but this version is only auto traced from the png version. I will more exactly redraw this version. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Not exact reason, also "traced" is not a reason only. -- Perhelion (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Desenfocada 
Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 01:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, very blurry orphan photo; no indication of any compensating notability. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Official sorority logo, "own work" claim is not credible. No evidence of actual release from Alpha Pi Phi. GrapedApe (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This image has been superceded by an "official" high quality image that was provided by the GLAM. I think it's okay to delete this. Sarah (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
![05:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/03/26#c-SarahStierch-2012-03-26T05:03:00.000Z-File:"Vanitas"_Still_Life.JPG){kind=link}
- The superceding image is File:Adam Bernaert - "Vanitas" Still Life - Walters 37682.jpg (for those trying to correct links afterwards, if the link isn't given in the deletion comment). Is there some documented best practices for these cases? --LPfi (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is Commons:Superseded images policy, but it doesn't seem to address the issue at hand. Personally, I support retaining all separately created photographs of artworks, unless they are clearly poor quality. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are quite a few images of Walters artworks that I think could be deleted (actually I have already deleted a few obvious cases). I am not sure for this one, as the two versions are about as detailed (look at the book for instance). If the brighter tones of the "official" version are truer to reality, I would think it would be more convenient to delete it, as duplicates clutter categories, raise maintenance burden, and may also waste time of end users who have to compare several versions of the image, while really there is nothing very interesting to compare. --Zolo (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is Commons:Superseded images policy, but it doesn't seem to address the issue at hand. Personally, I support retaining all separately created photographs of artworks, unless they are clearly poor quality. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed as kept. Free licensed in scope image; no consensus to delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
![04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/03/26#c-Infrogmation-2012-07-08T04:03:00.000Z-File:"Vanitas"_Still_Life.JPG){kind=link}
per (C) watermark likely not own work of uploader. Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not own work, author died in 1956. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not own work, author died in 1956. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the source, it is "copyright Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority" and there is no author listed. Stefan4 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot verify the license from the 'previously published' website. As such, unless the uploader can provide a link to where the photo is released on that site, or sends in an OTRS ticket, we have to delete this. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't verify the license either. Plus the image is just a random snapshot and doesn't seem to have any legitimate educational use. Kaldari (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per above. Unverified source; orphan uncat image. Infrogmation (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: apparently, it has been copied from 9GAG.com. Mathonius (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no record of the date of creation listed. The image appears on the Corbis website as a stock photo. Poster should supply the date that the work was created to assert that its copyright has expired. 76.95.194.101 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep 1814 painting by Joseph Allen (with different colours). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter Kuiper. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The Licensing template is not the right one even if it's a PD-text logo. Otourly (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Logo of a university which is not pure text. -- Meisam (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the uploader's (Lionelt's) argument that this organizational logo is public domain. Roscelese (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the uploader's work: he is one of the best editors we have. If he says it's PD then that's good enough for me.Lionelt (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Idiotic comments belong on your social media networks, not in file discussion space. Roscelese (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jeez. Where's your sense of humor? Haven't you read en:WP:Humor? Lionelt (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is a separate project; they have their own policies here. And apparently they have no equivalent of here. —teb728 t c 09:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a derivative work of something in Category:Red octagonal stop signs. Those images are in the public domain because they are {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-old}}. In many cases, they are also in the public domain because some or all government works are in the public domain. The changes (the addition of the word "ERA") looks ineligible for copyright to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a creation by the user based on PD material, though - as you can see on the file page, it comes from the organization's website. Roscelese (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Might it not be Template:PD-textlogo? Chris857 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be the most correct tag. Switching. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Might it not be Template:PD-textlogo? Chris857 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a creation by the user based on PD material, though - as you can see on the file page, it comes from the organization's website. Roscelese (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a derivative work of something in Category:Red octagonal stop signs. Those images are in the public domain because they are {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-old}}. In many cases, they are also in the public domain because some or all government works are in the public domain. The changes (the addition of the word "ERA") looks ineligible for copyright to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is a separate project; they have their own policies here. And apparently they have no equivalent of here. —teb728 t c 09:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jeez. Where's your sense of humor? Haven't you read en:WP:Humor? Lionelt (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Idiotic comments belong on your social media networks, not in file discussion space. Roscelese (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep You can't copyright an octogon with basic text on it. It's essentially a STOP sign with thre extra letters on it. Puhlease. Fry1989 eh? 22:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- LOoks like a PD-simple to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Seems a clear example of {{PD-textlogo}} -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation. Photo taken by school photographer. Too long ago to find said photographer and ask permission Vera (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - probably {{PD-Canada}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: according to the English Wikipedia, where the picture was added to an article, this image was created in 1940 or 1941, when William B. Davis was twelve years old. This means it is in the public domain (COM:L#Canada). I've changed the file description and license tag accordingly. Mathonius (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC) addition at 08:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Mathonius, thanks for your work, but your math seems wrong. Per en:William_B._Davis, the subject was born 13 January 1938, therefore a photo of him at age 12 cannot predate 13 Jan 1950 -- more than a year later than January 1, 1949. No evidence it would be PD-Canada for any other reason (Not Government work; no evidence the unnamed photographer has been dead over 50 years). -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
As the Wikipedia user Tenebrae, I uploaded this and asked that it be removed when a better image of the subject became available. I was surprised to see it hadn't been removed & that someone with whom I've had a contentious relationship had deliberately put it here. It's blurry, it's red-eyed -- It's just a badly photographed image-- and I'd asked in good faith for its removal long before it was brought here. Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep As the Wikipedia/Commons User who transferred image. The above editor's rationale for deletion was that as the image had become orphaned on wikipedia it was out of that project's scope. Having seen the Speedy Deletion notification on my Watchlist, I inspected the image and felt that it had worth as one of only two free images of the subject and that if it was out of scope at wikipedia it would be in scope here a commons (It had already been tagged by fBot as a suitable candidate for this). I approached the deleting admin to see if they agreed with me that it had worth and was within the scope of commons - he agreed but left me to make the transfer if I was sure that Tenebrae was the author (which I was). It worries me slightly that the uploader suggested I needed further permission to share this image on commons essentially revoking the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 that he applied to the image when he uploaded. I would consider deletion of however if as suggested by the admin on Wikipedia, Tenebrae were to release the full uncropped version of the image as a replacement. To prevent further controversy I will not do it myself, but would suggest that the uploader should consider moving the replacement image to commons as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed as kept. Free licensed photo of notable person; no consensus to delete. (Note despite hints that a better image of the person is available, no indication of where on Commons it might be found given -- and there's nothing wrong with Commons having a second best photo of a notable subject.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Own work?!? 77.184.128.183 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Low quality/JPG compression artifacts; replaced by File:Bazo gl miguelferig.PNG. Leyo 07:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Takabeg as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: According to the uploader, this image was taken from the official website of the Directorate General of Press and Information. However he didn't get permission. Sreejith K (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dmitry89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.dd-shop.ru/ copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dmitry89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted logo http://galernaya20.com/com/GALERNAYA20_OFFICIAL.html Sreejith K (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It was uploaded with pending permission from the true author -Rachmat.Wahidi (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://media.kolmodinsmarina.se/2010/11/FjordlingBroschyr001.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Tajikestan. Americophile 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Most likely copyvio as well McZusatz (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Tajikestan. Americophile 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.fjordclub.com/Modeller/Fjordling/IMG_0683.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.idc-europe.org/cite_imgs/EZbDZHtQiE_medium.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.stoletie.ru/idc1.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran Americophile 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran Americophile 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran Americophile 11:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Own work of the uploader is doubtful: the image has no EXIF information and was uploaded in a typical low web resolution High Contrast (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Own work of the uploader is doubtful: the image has no EXIF information and was uploaded in a typical low web resolution High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Javier.m-rojas (talk · contribs) attributed to Archivo Oficina de Proyectos Carlos Fernández Casado S.L.. No evidence of permissions. Some historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Modern monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Post-WWII monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Modern monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Coolnsree (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: modern text documents and receipt. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Kaka2206 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
THis image appears in several places on the web. I doubt "own work", but in any case we will need OTRS to keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is possibly PD-text logo, but it is certainly not "own work" as claimed -- it comes from http://www.coalitionofhope.org/ in exactly the same pixel size with an explicit copyright notice on the page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from www.resog.ru 188.104.115.9 18:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Have uploaded higher resolution file and no longer referencing this image! Stanisław Grodyński (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It said: Source: "www.balneariodemondariz.com Fotografia propiedad de Balneario de Mondariz S.L." . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the copyright owner is wrong. PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the copyright owner is wrong PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the copyright owner is wrong PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the copyright owner an permision of use is wrong PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the copyright owner an permision of use is wrong PatricioAlexanderWiki (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Actor photograph found widespread in the internet, rights not clear. Funfood ␌ 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and File:Aldar-kose.png. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely not own work. Obviously a professional promo shot. Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, although I can't find the same pic elsewhere, there're similar ones here.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
colorized derivative of en:File:Mulki Sunder Ram Shetty .jpg —teb728 t c 08:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) no it's not a colorized derivative of any work.Linguisticgeek (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: looks very likely this this. JuTa 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 颐园新居 as Speedy (上传有误,已有质量更好但不完全相同的页面) Sreejith K (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ElmA as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source not indicated Sreejith K (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- With that licence need OTRS-permission, so delete.--Motopark (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: JuTa 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: it's a picture of a notable singer called Pink, but I doubt the uploader really is the creator (missing EXIF data, low resolution). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gary Foote in front of a theatre with his guitar.JPG for a related DR. Mathonius (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: JuTa 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. --> No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actor Joshy Peters? Probably in scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, the person seems in scope. But I see a new problem: 'No permission'. The picture comes from here. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: looks like his autograf card without COM:OTRS confirmation not keepable. JuTa 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- probably in scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just get 34 Google results on "Muhammad Asif Kasi", which is really low. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. There is no doubt that the statue is still protected by the Iranian copyright law since the statue is a fairly new work (The statues has been sculpted after Morteza Avini death that took palace in 1993). Americophile 11:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
See en:User talk:Grbpradeep — the uploader has a long history of copyright violations on claimed own works. There's no reason to trust that either of these images are really own works of the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to official version File:Coat of arms of Leuggern.svg. Compare also the "normed" escutcheon form Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Aargau. Perhelion (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is logo of http://anti-orange.ru/ with copyright at the botom of page. Also it is very doubtful that Dembler is the real author of logo or that he has rights on this image. 90.157.21.2 18:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- свои сомнения обосновывайте более тщательно. Dembler 9 апреля 2012 года 14:10 МСК
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 11:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Who is the creator of the statue? --Leyo 12:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also affected: File:Statue of Abu Rayhan Biruni in Tehran Laleh Park.jpg, File:Abu reyhan biruni.jpg -- RE rillke questions? 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Leyo: The uploader is supposed to answer this question! Americophile 15:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Tajikistan. Americophile 11:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Added
- Delete. The statue was installed in 1980 and created shortly before that by an Azerbaijani and two Tajik sculptors [45]. I see no evidence it is not copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I have two arguments against deletion:
1) According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights "The servers that host Wikipedia are located in Florida, and so Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law." I know that this is Wikimedia Commons, but I suspect that the servers are in the same place. So it is likely that the law in Tajikistan does not apply directly. It says here that U.S. law allows for fair use when a specific treaty, law or agreement is not in place and the work is under copyright protection in it's source country. Given all that, I think that there is a good case to not delete this image.2) The article in Wikipedia that claims that Tajikistan has no FOP has no citation. I tried to follow a link to the copyright law of Tajikistan and got a "Problem loading page". It might be my connection, but it might also be a broken link. I am not familiar with how the Wikimedia commons is different from Wikipedia, so I might be off here, but I suggest that we use Wikipedia verifiability standards to make sure the "no FOP" claim is true. (Lexandalf (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC))I now see that fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia commons, but I still maintain that we should verify this information before acting on it. (Lexandalf (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC))- See webarchive copy here, Article 21. 1). It allows only non-commercial use, or situation when the artwork is not the major object. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I reviewed the source provided by Materialscientist. It is on an archival site, but the arcive seems to be from an institute of information law. I think that it should be considered credible. I used google translate to read the text on the page and was unable to find the exact word "panorama" in the translation; however under article 16.7 the translation states that the author of the work retains right to communicate or broadcast the work. I think that this is basically equivalent to "no FOP". So, this work seems to be copyrighted in the source country, which would only allow for "fair use" in the U.S. where Wikimedia is hosted. And based on the policy that Wikimedia Commons does allow not material to be uploaded based on Fair Use, I change my vote from "keep" to "delete". (Lexandalf (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 19:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
not own work McZusatz (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could be changed to {{PD-shape}} and source should be added. --McZusatz (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.marcel.com.ro/wp-content/gallery/preparate-traditionale/toba-moldoveneasca.jpg McZusatz (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- And most likely all the other uploads from this user. Delete --McZusatz (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The pic seems different. --80.214.1.15 15:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Adding some white space does not make this "own work". --McZusatz (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation as there are 5 album covers which are fairly prominent. If they fall under de minimis should be discussed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I see it, these covers were done by Alex, he gave a license (de facto) to Mr Gottlieb to so with as he would (he was a journo). Mr Gottlieb gave the world his images and all the associated permissions. i.e. its moral/legal QED Victuallers (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Victuallers.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete while he may have given some sort of implied license for the images to appear in the photo, there is no implied license for use for commercial purposes/derivative works/etc etc etc. Therefore they are unfree. (And who knows whether he even owned the copyrights anyways - they probably belonged to the record company and not him, meaning that he couldn't actually release any rights.) I don't think this is de minimis - very prominent in the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also note that we have File:Alex Steinweiss, New York ca. Apr. 1947 crop.jpg which is in my view an acceptable alternative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The scenario Victuallers describes is basically permission for specific use, not release under a free license. As you know, Commons does not allow images under permission for specific use without explicit release. Chick Bowen (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of the fact that Steinweiss created these, I think copyright on th cover designs would go to the corporation(s?) which commissioned him to create them. It's not like he made album covers just for the sheer fun of it. DS (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I doesn't matter. They're not free either way. Chick Bowen (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: but told CommonsDelinker to use the cropped version. JuTa 20:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to official version File:Coat of arms of Baden AG.svg. Compare also the "normed" escutcheon form Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Aargau Perhelion (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: its heavily in use. JuTa 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect? It's only a user signature... --46.115.49.129 21:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Modern monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
.it shall be permitted without the consent of the author!!!!"это допускается без согласия автора (или другого владельца прав) и с обязательным указанием имени автора и источника заимствования: ... "
Источник указан, на форуме имеются фотографии кто жертвовал на памятник, на памятнике автор не указан! прошу ознакомится. Прошу снять удоление с моих файлов, они используются город курортный и они сделаны прежде всего для туристов!!!!
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Image contains a copyright notice within the image and a watermark. Uploaded does not list date of creation. Ericschrader (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep does not "1835" give a clue? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: image without watrmark inbetween and PD-old is OK. JuTa 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo without metadatas which could be find there : http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3392156 so probably a Copyvio Otourly (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader have history of tagging copyrighted photos as public domain [46] -- Meisam (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SRB.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation/ not own work of the uploader - see the copyright notice that resides in the middle of this photo 188.104.115.9 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Look this pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbi_armor_blindajes/3023204582/in/photostream is almost the same but its licence is cc-by. --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The wikimedia commons user and the flickr user are the same person. Should be kept. --McZusatz (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: should be confirmed by COM:OTRS. (and the OTRS template was added by a non OTRS member) JuTa 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is apparently a photograph of Michael Madhusudan Dutt, not Bharatchandra Ray. It seems to have been mislabelled on the source site. (Apart from anything else, Ray died in 1760 and so could not have been photographed!) Shimgray (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Even http://www.citatealese.ro/ also mentions that the the person is Bharatchandra Ray. Also the photo may be a portrait which was scanned or something. So my opinion is not to delete the photo on speculation and look for some books or some other source. Since I am from Tamil Nadu I will not be able to find books about him. May be some one from West Bengal will be able to do it. Or else if you can prove it is Michael Madhusudan Dutt then no objection in deleting the photo. Balaji (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't prove it isn't Roy, unfortunately, as I've had no luck finding a confirmed portrait of him. However, it definitely seems to be Dutt. The picture is very close to the one on this stamp; they may even be taken from the same illustration. It also seems to be the same man as is shown in the picture of Dutt in Banglapedia here (reproduced on the Penguin India site here). Shimgray (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with your proof. I have no objection in deleting the above said file. Balaji (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't prove it isn't Roy, unfortunately, as I've had no luck finding a confirmed portrait of him. However, it definitely seems to be Dutt. The picture is very close to the one on this stamp; they may even be taken from the same illustration. It also seems to be the same man as is shown in the picture of Dutt in Banglapedia here (reproduced on the Penguin India site here). Shimgray (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
1988 statue in the United States. Originally from Czechoslovakia and then moved to the United States. The United States has no freedom of panorama and it doesn't matter that Czechoslovakia has freedom of panorama since statues are copyrighted anyway; freedom of panorama just allows photos of them if they happen to be in the correct country.
Links to policy on freedom of panorama: United States (no freedom of panorama for statues), Czech Republic (freedom of panorama for statues), Slovakia (freedom of panorama for statues). A user asked me on my talk page to clarify and point to freedom of panorama policies and to avoid using acronyms.
- File:2000 Fremont Solstice Parade - Lenin Square.jpg
- File:Fremont Lenin Christmas 2006.jpg
- File:Fremont Lenin statue 01.jpg
- File:Fremont Lenin statue 02.jpg
- File:Lenin statue Fremont.jpg
- File:Lenin's statue at Fremont (USA).jpg
- File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg
- File:Statue de Lénine à Seattle, USA.jpg
- File:TooFarNorth - Lenin (by).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Could you please trace the rationale for considering this particular statue copyrighted under U.S. law (given the date of its creation, and all)? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying your remarks above do not make this clear at all. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have linked to the article on the statue: en:Statue of Lenin, Seattle. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assume that is not an answer to my question, since copyright is not discussed anywhere in the article. This looks to me like a rather complicated case. I'm not sure whether under Czechoslovak law at the time, Venkov would ever have had a copyright on such a work; certainly, without a registration it would not have had any copyright under U.S. law at the time of its creation. I'm hoping someone with actual expertise will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is a post-1978 work, so it would generally not be considered as published under US law. As such, formalities don't matter. If it was published, it would already have been published in Czechoslovakia (that is, it would be a foreign work), and so it would have had its copyright restored under the URAA. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US on publication of statues in the US. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stefan, it's pre-1989 and has no copyright notice on it, so if US law applies from the outset & it wasn't registered, it would be public domain. But it wasn't in the U.S. when it was first created/unveiled, so I suspect that Czechoslovak (and later Slovak) law applies. And I don't know whether copyright would have applied at all to such a work there at the relevant time. That's exactly why I'm asking for a more expert opinion. Instead of us semi-clueless amateur's flailing around, I suggest we wait for someone with a better knowledge of relevant law to weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright notices are only relevant if a statue has been published but not if it is unpublished. Pre-1978 statues are usually published (so copyright notices matter) but post-1977 statues are usually unpublished (so it is irrelevant if there is a copyright notice or not). However, this statue is originally from Czechoslovakia, which makes matters more complex. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stefan, it's pre-1989 and has no copyright notice on it, so if US law applies from the outset & it wasn't registered, it would be public domain. But it wasn't in the U.S. when it was first created/unveiled, so I suspect that Czechoslovak (and later Slovak) law applies. And I don't know whether copyright would have applied at all to such a work there at the relevant time. That's exactly why I'm asking for a more expert opinion. Instead of us semi-clueless amateur's flailing around, I suggest we wait for someone with a better knowledge of relevant law to weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is a post-1978 work, so it would generally not be considered as published under US law. As such, formalities don't matter. If it was published, it would already have been published in Czechoslovakia (that is, it would be a foreign work), and so it would have had its copyright restored under the URAA. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US on publication of statues in the US. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assume that is not an answer to my question, since copyright is not discussed anywhere in the article. This looks to me like a rather complicated case. I'm not sure whether under Czechoslovak law at the time, Venkov would ever have had a copyright on such a work; certainly, without a registration it would not have had any copyright under U.S. law at the time of its creation. I'm hoping someone with actual expertise will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have linked to the article on the statue: en:Statue of Lenin, Seattle. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if copyright applied, Venkof did the work under commission from the Czech and Soviet governments. This means it would have been a work for hire, and Venkov would not retain copyright (see Erno Rubik or Alexey Pazhitnov for more on Soviet work-for-hire copyright), but either or both of the Czechoslovakian or Soviet Union governments would technically end up holding copyright. Neither governments still exist. So, that is the starting point for this discussion -- what happens to state copyright after those states are dissolved? - KeithTyler 05:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the copyright of those states have been taken over by the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the various Soviet republics? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is the sort of question certain law students would love to investigaet and answer fro a good cause. Do we have an appropriate legal list to ping in such cases? --SJ+ 04:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be found that since the aforementioned statue is now property of the United states, and therefore is now the the most likely of circumstances under control of either the the public parks system or under the department of recreation of Seattle, no copyright is needed. This being that the all Citizens of the United States have full access to parks of the federal and local governments, and rights to the capture of the images of these parks. Also in regards to the copyright since the statue was purchased, all rights to the statue and its use would go to the retainer of the statue. Since the creator no longer retains it, he or she would no longer have rights to its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade 9753 (talk • contribs) 2012-03-28T05:15:46 (UTC)
- Huh? The statue is the property of a citizen of the United States (or maybe several; it belongs to the heir[s] of the person who bought and transported it), not of the United States; it is on private land, and, while this is the second location where it has been displayed in Fremont, it has never been displayed in a public park in Seattle; even if it were, that would have nothing to do with copyright status; there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the U.S., quite regardless of who owns the land; and I'm not sure what you are saying the "creator no longer retains," but the only relevant thing is who has copyright, not who owns the physical object. Again, I'd like to hear from someone who knows enough of the relevant law to state knowledgeably what its copyright status would be. - Jmabel ! talk 11:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, {{PD-USGov}} means that the work was made by the US government, not just that the US government happens to own a copy of it. If a US government employee goes to a local supermarket and buys a newspaper for his employer, the newspaper remains copyrighted and doesn't magically become {{PD-USGov}}. The US government doesn't seem to have anything to do with the construction of the statue, so I don't see how {{PD-USGov}} would apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete {{FoP-US-no notice}} doesn't apply because of the date. I've closed a related discussion as delete on English Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 25#File:Lenin in Seattle.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- FOP is only relevant if there exists a holder of copyright, and it hasn't been established that there is. (FWIW, the WP "discussion" was not one and had no votes yet was still closed as Delete, so that's pretty inconclusive. Seems like to delete a file on WP these days you just post RFD and wait a few days, no need to actually defend the position anymore, because WP has (d)evolved such that it is easier to destroy than to create. Ahem. Anyway.) - KeithTyler (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- But wouldn't just the copyright be reassigned to someone else? There was an interesting case here in Sweden a couple of years ago regarding de:Mein Kampf: sv:Hägglunds förlag published a Swedish translation of the book, but de:Freistaat Bayern tried to stop the publication, claiming copyright infringement. In the end, sv:Högsta domstolen (Sverige) claimed that the book was copyrighted but that de:Freistaat Bayern wasn't the copyright holder. Since the copyright holder hadn't complained about the publication, no action was taken against the publisher. In the de:Mein Kampf case, there is a copyright holder; the only problem is that no one knows who it is. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe that is a safe presumption. If an author dies, his heirs presumably inherit the copyright. What if he has no heirs? I find it hard to accept (well, no, I don't, but still) that copyright rules say that a work can have no copyright holder and still be copyrighted. Of course, I'm talking about a state and not a person, but in copyright terms, I'm not sure there's much a difference; a holder is a holder, and if that holder ceases to exist, what happens to the copyright? I would argue it disappears. I guess it would depend on the laws of Czechoslovakia... or of the Soviet Union... see above. Of course, the US (and some other countries, now) overreached copyright from a civil matter to a criminal matter, so I can certainly see the gaping potential for Kafka-esque situations of being punished for violating a copyright that no one actually has (it's probably already happened). (IANACL, but neither apparently is anyone else here.) - KeithTyler (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you die and don't have any heirs, the government (or some other authority) will inherit your material property. Presumably, the same authority would inherit immaterial property too. Not sure what happens if a country "dies" without heirs, though. Per COM:PRP, assume a heir exists unless proven otherwise. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe that is a safe presumption. If an author dies, his heirs presumably inherit the copyright. What if he has no heirs? I find it hard to accept (well, no, I don't, but still) that copyright rules say that a work can have no copyright holder and still be copyrighted. Of course, I'm talking about a state and not a person, but in copyright terms, I'm not sure there's much a difference; a holder is a holder, and if that holder ceases to exist, what happens to the copyright? I would argue it disappears. I guess it would depend on the laws of Czechoslovakia... or of the Soviet Union... see above. Of course, the US (and some other countries, now) overreached copyright from a civil matter to a criminal matter, so I can certainly see the gaping potential for Kafka-esque situations of being punished for violating a copyright that no one actually has (it's probably already happened). (IANACL, but neither apparently is anyone else here.) - KeithTyler (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- But wouldn't just the copyright be reassigned to someone else? There was an interesting case here in Sweden a couple of years ago regarding de:Mein Kampf: sv:Hägglunds förlag published a Swedish translation of the book, but de:Freistaat Bayern tried to stop the publication, claiming copyright infringement. In the end, sv:Högsta domstolen (Sverige) claimed that the book was copyrighted but that de:Freistaat Bayern wasn't the copyright holder. Since the copyright holder hadn't complained about the publication, no action was taken against the publisher. In the de:Mein Kampf case, there is a copyright holder; the only problem is that no one knows who it is. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- FOP is only relevant if there exists a holder of copyright, and it hasn't been established that there is. (FWIW, the WP "discussion" was not one and had no votes yet was still closed as Delete, so that's pretty inconclusive. Seems like to delete a file on WP these days you just post RFD and wait a few days, no need to actually defend the position anymore, because WP has (d)evolved such that it is easier to destroy than to create. Ahem. Anyway.) - KeithTyler (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep This statute is public domain, as it was produced by the Czech government. Unless someones provides a copyright registration under US law, we can assume that this statue is in the public domain. Hence FOP issues are mooted: things in the public domain are in the public domain.--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is your source for the claim that Czech government works are in the public domain? --Stefan4 (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP JuTa 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)