Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This photo is from the old airport; there is a new one (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeropuerto_Internacional_de_Carrasco), so, the photo should be changed. Thanks. 186.48.214.196 00:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to ask for deletion. Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Not PD anymore due to changes in PD-Afghanistan. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons is fortunate to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Lousy quality so really out of scope and speedy Herby talk thyme 16:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons is fortunate to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Really lousy quality so speedy Herby talk thyme 16:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons is fortunate to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Really poor quality so out of scope Herby talk thyme 16:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermarked, clear copyvio Béria Lima msg 15:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copvio. Béria Lima msg 15:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, no educational value – JBarta (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons is fortunate to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Reported copyrigt infringement, see ticket:2012040710007576 (in German), official email adress; see also other uploads by uploader that appear to be reproductions of already existing photos, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Li_Muri_4.JPG and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bronzetto_nuragico_5.JPG (thanks to an anonymous tipster for pointing me to those). ~ —Pill (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyviolation. DaB. (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this can qualify as PD-text but I have my doubts, but I want a wider community consensus to take a look at this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, copyvio, and is a logo. Not so much of PD-Text Béria Lima msg 01:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no assertion of the permission indicated on this image allowing for commercial reuse. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept USN photo. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And I deleted the image as it's clearly marked as courtesy photo. --Denniss (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copyvio. Béria Lima msg 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copyvio. Béria Lima msg 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copyvio. Béria Lima msg 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copyvio. Béria Lima msg 01:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked, clear copyvio. Béria Lima msg 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked copyvio in a country with Copyright laws. Until prove in contrary we need to assume the copyright of the picture, and this has no prove of being released into a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked copyvio in a country with Copyright laws. Until prove in contrary we need to assume the copyright of the picture, and this has no prove of being released into a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked copyvio in a country with Copyright laws. Until prove in contrary we need to assume the copyright of the picture, and this has no prove of being released into a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Child porn Jstuef (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not clearly an adult. Bielle (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly not an adult / potential legal issues / poor quality / COM:SCOPE Alison ❤ 21:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Child porn Jstuef (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not clearly an adult. Bielle (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly not an adult / potential legal issues / poor quality / COM:SCOPE Alison ❤ 21:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
resolution and context suggests this to be not own work, but a capture from a movie. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, as - per the image caption on :it - this has been shot end of the 1970ies. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader, considering his upload history. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: mlc Polarlys (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As per the resolution and slightly blurryness likely a capture from TV/movie. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As per the resoluion and black borders likely a screenshot/capture from TV/movie. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Wicked Girls at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2009 (18).jpg 188.254.230.210 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion Tabercil (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No need for this -- all WMF projects resize on the fly Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree. By Wikimedia Foundation projects, you mean SVG images? Anyway, the point of the bitmapped currency sign here is that it's intended to be inline with the text size used in Wikipedia. Like so:
362, 2. Reducing the SVG image to 12px as had been done as a compromise earlier still left it far to large and it had already started to become blurred and greyish. It doesn't work as an inline character: 
362, 21. If it's made smaller, then the blurring becomes worse. The point of an inline character is that it should be sharp. Also, I note that other people seem to agree with me -- after I created this bitmapped character and placed it in the "Turkish Lira" page, other people have inserted it many other places in preference to the SVG character so that its usage has now grown quite large.--Farry (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree. By Wikimedia Foundation projects, you mean SVG images? Anyway, the point of the bitmapped currency sign here is that it's intended to be inline with the text size used in Wikipedia. Like so:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_u._Prok,_Heinrich_Hermes.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Oryx-packacge.png){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}
- Aha. Now I understand, thank you. Since this is a brand new symbol it does not have a typeset equivalent. "WMF" = Wikimedia Foundation -- all of our projects resize as required, but, as you say, not particularly well at this size. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Like other uploads from user: no own work, archive material with unclear source. Funfood ␌ 23:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no proper source Polarlys (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license Béria Lima msg 04:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license Béria Lima msg 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license Béria Lima msg 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license Béria Lima msg 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. Should be undeleted 2020. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep This one is right on the cusp but should be ok. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say delete to be undeleted soon (like in 2020). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're the nominator, yes we know what you think lol. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say delete to be undeleted soon (like in 2020). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - It may still be protected. Of course, it can be undeleted in 2020, when the copyright protection clearly expires. --Botev (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. This one will be undeleted in 2020. Béria Lima msg 04:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: This work is in the public domain in Afghanistan according to The law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers (Copy Right Law).Since Afghanistan is not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright, works published by Afghan citizens in Afghanistan are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of Afghanistan. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide.
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that, but it is a picture from the Office of the president of Afghanistan, as far as I know, no copyrights apply, or does it? Hazara-Birar (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The template says Afghanistan is also not party to any international copyright treaties, so the item is in the public domain outside Afghanistan. Hosted on servers in the USA, should be ok as it's in the public domain? Has the law been enacted by the Afghan parliament yet? It was signed in 2008, but has to be presented to parliament to be enacted...99.251.51.217 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The license on Flickr is "All Rights Reserved" and does not give an option for cc-zero. Also the PD-Afghan license is no longer correct anymore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unclear author information. Image source is a website that usually does not release images under CC. SPat (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Added permission link from the site. Should be OK now. Vivvt (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, looks good - withdrawing nomination. SPat (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: License reviewed Sreejith K (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
insufficient licensing, taken from http://www.omnischool.eu/images/2011/corey_oprichter.jpg Agora (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Already have OTRS permission Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded this file, but I chose wrong description and wrong licence and I want upload my photo with right description and licence again, what i can´t because commons is noticing me that on commons is duplicate file... Please delete this photo and I will upload it again. Thank you ATriXe (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"all rights reserved, free for use on Wikipedia" does not sound like a sufficient license for Commons (nor PD, as it is tagged). Dominic (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Have you contacted the uploader? --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the image has been released under the given license. The image metadata carries the notice "© 2010 Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved." Dominic (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not entirely the uploader's own work, which they only started claiming after I requested evidence that all the stated authors had approved the stated licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- this is my own work. before removing, prove that it is not my own work. Lucky Fighter (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- So you own and operate a satellite? If this is entirely your own work, why did you initially cite Google Earth as the source and "GIS Innovatsia US Dept of State Geographer, Terra metrics, Mapabc.com" as authors? Have all of those actually approved publication under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused persoanl image, out of scope. Americophile 09:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, this smaller uncropped version predates the upload here [1] January (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
resolution and context suggests this to be not own work, but a capture from a movie. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Crop from [[2]], official shot from french daily soap, unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 14:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The file is from early 20th century, so it is round 100 years old. We do not know if the author died within the last 70 years. Author name is identical with Uploadername, this can't be correct. So author + lifetimes and/or year of publication needed Quedel (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is fairly plain it's anonymous, it was a mass-produced corporate work. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard --Itu (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The original version was uploaded by the user ItsLassieTime, who has been banned from wikipedia, but remains unblocked on commons. Both there and here, ILT disappeared in 2009. He was notorious for copyright violations, among other things. I am skeptical that the user Morn, who appeared later in 2009 and who worked on the quality of this Easter card and then re-uploaded it, would necessarily be ILT - more likely an unhappy coincidence. But I wouldn't trust the copyright status of anything uploaded by ILT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm not ILT. Thanks for asking. :-) --Morn (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - a similar postcard was posted in the US in 1912, so {{PD-1923}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Concur with Peter that it's very likely to be from the same "family" of cards - same lettering, same outside-the-frame design. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Request to license bigyahu's photos via Getty Images P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- which simply rephrases the CC-BY license and is fine with Commons. The issue is someone has recently created this badge, and we have no evidence this design was released into public domain. Thus Delete per insufficient licensing. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, private personal picture, no educational value – JBarta (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, private personal picture, no educational value – JBarta (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably not free, according to the watermark. See all other images uploaded by this user. Trijnsteltalk 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Per the image caption on :en, which had been added by the uploader himself[3], shot during TV Show Bravo. Therefore likely not own work of uploader, but capture from TV. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No license tag nor source/author. Gumruch (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential information Lymantria (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Possible personality rights issues as three people are clearly shown and according to the description it was taken at w:Bodington Hall; if it's the residential part it is not a public place. January (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.62.204.235 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No originality on the facade. A.Savin 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused image, out of scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator has not given any consistent reason of why this file should be deleted. Fma12 (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter; each file has their own special case. I also want to point out this license is also incorrect for this image. The company was founded in 1999 in the Ukraine, so this logo was not even able to be published before that 1951 cutoff. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused image, out of scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdulrhman503 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work. E.g. File:Wolf wallpaper.jpg is from [4], File:24e96ab8e2.jpg has a Moiré pattern, ...
![[4]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kostenlosewallpaper.com/wallpapers/nachtwolf-hd-wallpaper-kostenlos--1152x864.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kostenlosewallpaper.com/gratis-wallpaper-download/nachtwolf-hd-wallpaper-kostenlos--1152x864--999.html&h=864&w=1152&sz=327&tbnid=Ib5vFgx9ayko_M&tbnh=194&tbnw=259&zoom=1&sa=X&ei=UAqCT7TYNpGWsAa1z_3YCQ&ved=0CGsQ8g0&usg=__fOYSHQQ_yTzOL34pZ1edgAm7624=){kind=link}
- File:Sgsva.jpg
- File:4SX41071.jpg
- File:Wolf wallpaper.jpg
- File:24e96ab8e2.jpg
- File:1325784502325morad.jpg
-- RE rillke questions? 22:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
User seems here to make advertising but not to help building an educational image collection. Am I wrong? Please let us know. Thank you.
RE rillke questions? 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisment Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
same as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:邱彰.jpg. Mys 721tx (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
這是我拍的照片到底要如何才可以不被刪除呢?請指導我,我已經嘗試了很多次了Eric hsu1222 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: NC-restricted on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/60424997@N02/6784652114/in/photostream/ Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Photograph from Afghanistan, from commercial news agency. Not {{PD-Afghanistan}} as claimed, because the agency, though Afghan-owned, publishes through servers in the US (according to WHOIS entries for pajhwok.com. The agency's server is http://li63-52.members.linode.com/, this is geolocated in the US.) and claims copyright on its material [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - According to this, "w:Pajhwok Afghan News (PAN) is Afghanistan’s largest independent news agency. With headquarters in Kabul[6], eight regional bureaus and a nationwide network of reporters and correspondents..." This image of the mosque was captured inside Afghanistan by Lataria Farshad, employee of PAN news agency and a citizen of Afghanistan. PAN is an Afghan entity and their news is published in Afghanistan the moment it is posted. Therefore, the {{PD-Afghanistan}} should apply here until the country pass a copyright law.--Officer (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- What counts is the country of publication. If it's published through a server in the US, then the US is the country of publication. Even if it was published simultaneously both in Afghanistan itself and through the US web server, the publication in the US means that it falls under US copyright, unless publication in Afghanistan was more than 30 days earlier [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was created in February 2009 in Afghanistan and I uploaded it in August 2011. We have no information what Lataria Farshad, the creator of this work, did to it before uploading it to Pajhwok Afghan News. She or he could have showned it to many Afghan people in Kabul or possibly publish it in a local news paper. I just remember something, I don't think li63-52.members.linode.com was Pajhwok's server at the time (in 2009) because I've been checking this news site since its launch and there was constant changes made to their services. I was unable to access the site during the night, that indicates that its server was in Afghanistan at the time. If you click on the link (li63-52.members...) it showes material from February 2011. Also, this may be stupid but Afghanistan is about 10 hours before USA (i.e. it was Saturday in Afghanistan while Friday in USA).--Officer (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- What counts is the country of publication. If it's published through a server in the US, then the US is the country of publication. Even if it was published simultaneously both in Afghanistan itself and through the US web server, the publication in the US means that it falls under US copyright, unless publication in Afghanistan was more than 30 days earlier [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with Officer that it was published in Afghanistan. Doesn't matter the location of their hosting service. --MarsRover (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not denying it was (also) published in Afghanistan. That's not the point. Can you explain why you think it was not published in the US? Why would the location of the servers not matter? It matters in precisely the same way as the location of the Wikipedia server in the US, which determines that I am right now publishing this posting in the US, even though I am physically somewhere else myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- The question, I guess, is a much where twas first published as opposed to just whether or not it was also published in the country that hosted the server. Presumably the uploading of the material also counts as publishing, and I guess I would assume that this happened In Afganistan. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, if it was published simultaneously in both countries, it also falls under US copyright. "Simultaneous", for this purpose, includes anything less than 30 days apart [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was captured in February 2009 and the link (http://li63-52.members.linode.com/) for the agency's server that you provided is showing the date February 2011, that's 2 years apart. This is a problem, it suggests that the agency began using linode.com as its server on February 6, 2011, click on the link and you'll see. Unless you have convincing evidence to show us that Afghanistan-based Pajhwok Afghan News was using linod.com in February 2009, your argument here is pretty weak.--Officer (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you have convincing evidence they recently changed their web servers and were previously using servers inside the country, your argument is thin. Especially since it seems to be the case that there are virtually no web servers in Afghanistan at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Future's argument seem more and more based on original research. So, now Future's argument is based on knowing how many servers were in the country in 2009? IMHO, using WHOIS records to figure out applicable copyright laws seems an unusual and dubious practice. Is there a previous case where the WHOIS record overrode the explicit statement on the website of the location and date of publishing? I think you need that for this debate to even be debatable. --MarsRover (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Original research"? What has "original research" got to do with anything? Finding out the copyright status of an image is not Wikipedia article content, where we rely on external sources; it's something that we have to do ourselves; of course we must use our own powers of reasoning for that. And as for the explicit statement on the website: the website explicitly claims copyright, that's what it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Me and many other members here are aware that Afghanistan doesn't have copyright laws yet, images captured inside Afghanistan by Afghan citizens are not protected. You want to have this image deleted by saying that it was first published in the United States because the Afghan news agency is a customer of an American server (linode.com) company, but this is a very strange argument because everyone in the world uses American satelites, domains, and servers. Also, Afghanistan has 100s of local newspapers and dozens of local TV channels, this Afghan person who captured this image could have published his or her work in Afghanistan before it was on the internet. Yeah, we have no proof but we naturally have to assume that. Before we discuss the issue of "first publication", you have to show us convincing proof that in 2009 Pajhwok Afghan News was a customer of linode.com and was using that company. Their customer number is li63-52 and when you click on this link (http://li63-52.members.linode.com/en) tt shows that they joined on February 6, 2011.--Officer (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The web publication is clearly dated. It's from the very next day after the picture was taken. So the "could have published it in Afghanistan earlier" argument is obviously bogus. You keep ignoring the fact that in order to count as not first published in the US, the previous publication in Afghanistan would have to precede the US release by more than 30 days, which is impossible here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- You really have a complicated method of figuring out a copyright so I don't think just answering "obviously bogus" works. How could a photo taken in 2009 not be published in 2009? --MarsRover (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? You don't even seem to have understood what the argument is about. Of course, an image taken in 2009 could theoretically have been published significantly later. But in this case it wasn't. Officer was claiming that we could assume publication in some other outlet in Afghanistan before publication through the (American) website, and I was merely pointing out that there was simply no time for that, because it appeared on the website immediately after it was taken, in a daily news report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand your last statement, you just agreed with me the photo was published in 2009. The problem is you have no evidence that in 2009 the "pajhwok.com" was hosted in the US. The currently hosting location isn't relevant and that is all you provided as proof. There is a bunch of other problems with your assertion but that is the most obvious. Also, your tone is sort of insulting so this is my last comment here. Good luck. --MarsRover (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is just to remind you that the dates on cameras are not always correct, especially in Afghanistan where people don't bother with fixing this.--Officer (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? You don't even seem to have understood what the argument is about. Of course, an image taken in 2009 could theoretically have been published significantly later. But in this case it wasn't. Officer was claiming that we could assume publication in some other outlet in Afghanistan before publication through the (American) website, and I was merely pointing out that there was simply no time for that, because it appeared on the website immediately after it was taken, in a daily news report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- You really have a complicated method of figuring out a copyright so I don't think just answering "obviously bogus" works. How could a photo taken in 2009 not be published in 2009? --MarsRover (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The web publication is clearly dated. It's from the very next day after the picture was taken. So the "could have published it in Afghanistan earlier" argument is obviously bogus. You keep ignoring the fact that in order to count as not first published in the US, the previous publication in Afghanistan would have to precede the US release by more than 30 days, which is impossible here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Me and many other members here are aware that Afghanistan doesn't have copyright laws yet, images captured inside Afghanistan by Afghan citizens are not protected. You want to have this image deleted by saying that it was first published in the United States because the Afghan news agency is a customer of an American server (linode.com) company, but this is a very strange argument because everyone in the world uses American satelites, domains, and servers. Also, Afghanistan has 100s of local newspapers and dozens of local TV channels, this Afghan person who captured this image could have published his or her work in Afghanistan before it was on the internet. Yeah, we have no proof but we naturally have to assume that. Before we discuss the issue of "first publication", you have to show us convincing proof that in 2009 Pajhwok Afghan News was a customer of linode.com and was using that company. Their customer number is li63-52 and when you click on this link (http://li63-52.members.linode.com/en) tt shows that they joined on February 6, 2011.--Officer (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Original research"? What has "original research" got to do with anything? Finding out the copyright status of an image is not Wikipedia article content, where we rely on external sources; it's something that we have to do ourselves; of course we must use our own powers of reasoning for that. And as for the explicit statement on the website: the website explicitly claims copyright, that's what it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Future's argument seem more and more based on original research. So, now Future's argument is based on knowing how many servers were in the country in 2009? IMHO, using WHOIS records to figure out applicable copyright laws seems an unusual and dubious practice. Is there a previous case where the WHOIS record overrode the explicit statement on the website of the location and date of publishing? I think you need that for this debate to even be debatable. --MarsRover (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you have convincing evidence they recently changed their web servers and were previously using servers inside the country, your argument is thin. Especially since it seems to be the case that there are virtually no web servers in Afghanistan at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was captured in February 2009 and the link (http://li63-52.members.linode.com/) for the agency's server that you provided is showing the date February 2011, that's 2 years apart. This is a problem, it suggests that the agency began using linode.com as its server on February 6, 2011, click on the link and you'll see. Unless you have convincing evidence to show us that Afghanistan-based Pajhwok Afghan News was using linod.com in February 2009, your argument here is pretty weak.--Officer (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, if it was published simultaneously in both countries, it also falls under US copyright. "Simultaneous", for this purpose, includes anything less than 30 days apart [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- The question, I guess, is a much where twas first published as opposed to just whether or not it was also published in the country that hosted the server. Presumably the uploading of the material also counts as publishing, and I guess I would assume that this happened In Afganistan. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not denying it was (also) published in Afghanistan. That's not the point. Can you explain why you think it was not published in the US? Why would the location of the servers not matter? It matters in precisely the same way as the location of the Wikipedia server in the US, which determines that I am right now publishing this posting in the US, even though I am physically somewhere else myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I would need our nominator to offer a far more convincing explanation as to why it is the location of the webserver that counts when determining where the image was published -- not the location of the publisher's official corporate office. I am going to bring up the "simultaneous publication" assertion on Commons:Village Pump. Geo Swan (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted- Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 07:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdraw, no copyrigght in Afghanistan Darwin Ahoy! 07:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's too simple for copyright. Basic text and two geometric shapes. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - PD-text-logo applies here. Too simple for copyright. Béria Lima msg 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Low quality flash photo of a poster. Unlikely the uploader's original work. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Low quality, but it is in use and apparently it is the only image for illustrating the article. Also probably {{PD-Afghanistan}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- ... oh right, Afghanistan. Well never mind then. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It is a flash photograph, which wrongly states it is the uploader's work. It clearly isn't. It is intellectual theft of a recent poster. What are we saying? Because Afghanistan is a failed state with no developed legal framework, then it is OK to steal from them? Is common's policy reduced to "we do everything that's legal - regardless of the ethics?". I'm asking not "will we be sued if we keep this image?" but "should we keep this image?". It has been fraudulently uploaded under an implausible claim. Surely that's not good enough. Further the claim "its the only image for illustrating the article" is irrelevant. There's lots of articles where the only image would be unfree - we simply have no illustration in such cases, it's no biggy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed the license tags. If you think {{PD-Afghanistan}} is an illegitimate tag that seems like a wider policy issue to bring up in another forum. I'm only concerned with enforcing existing policy and legal restrictions. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It is a flash photograph, which wrongly states it is the uploader's work. It clearly isn't. It is intellectual theft of a recent poster. What are we saying? Because Afghanistan is a failed state with no developed legal framework, then it is OK to steal from them? Is common's policy reduced to "we do everything that's legal - regardless of the ethics?". I'm asking not "will we be sued if we keep this image?" but "should we keep this image?". It has been fraudulently uploaded under an implausible claim. Surely that's not good enough. Further the claim "its the only image for illustrating the article" is irrelevant. There's lots of articles where the only image would be unfree - we simply have no illustration in such cases, it's no biggy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- ... oh right, Afghanistan. Well never mind then. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We may not like it, but the Afgani legislature has chosen to not address copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, the photo is not below the threshold of originality as stated by the licence template. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per {{FoP-Belgium}}. Yann (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The statue is now OK, but there is no permission from the photographer. Yann (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- While I requested its COM:UNDEL per FOP, like other non-admins it was invisible to me. Now visible, I concur with Delete - sourced from the web. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused image, the license is incorrect. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Exact SVG available as Serbian Cross.svg {{SUBST:Colour|#C6363C|Kac}}{{SUBST:Colour|#0C4076|nep}}{{SUBST:Colour|##DCDCDC|cku}} 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Non-Free Logo
- The File Should Not be deleted
I strongly recommend that this particular file not be deleted. The reason being is that there isn't any absoutly free logo for this particular political organisation. It is extremely unlikely that the use of their political logo on a knowledge sharing website would have a negative effect on a newly formed political entity. This Bahamian political party I'm sure wouldn't mind if their logo be used on Wikipedia.User:Dannyboybs18 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The logo does not seems to be original enough to be copyrightable. PD-inelegible should apply. Fma12 (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The logo is easily copyrightable, and definitely not PD-textlogo. It could be fair use on the English Wikipedia, but fair use images cannot be on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. The lighthouse artwork seems to exceed minimum simple logo criteria. (Only use was on en:W; might be uploaded there to illustrate article on party under fair use.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this image is own work (low resolution, no EXIF, many results with Google and the only upload of user) Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Michaela den (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Can be found here, uploaded ten days prior to the Commons upload date, where it's watermarked. — ξxplicit 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
License says NC דוד שי (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, non-free license. This could have been speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't know, if photographer Polis died before 1942, so we cannot assume that this file is in public domain. Quedel (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- [Peter Polis] died 1929. --ArthurMcGill (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for eruating the correct author. So it is public domain in Germany, but not in US (URAA). Maybe transferred to local de.wp? --Quedel (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed as 'Kept. PD-Old. (I don't know any reason US copyright law would be relevant for this work from that era unless there is some indication of a publication in the US with a registered US copyright.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Commons is fortunate enough to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; orphan vanity own penis photo. Commons has more than 400 images in category "Erect human penis", many of superior anatomical illustrative quality. Infrogmation (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sourced from a 2009 book - probable copyright violation. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Yes its copyrighed, As the derivative will not make a new copyright..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The image seems to be redrawn from the illustration in the book, and there seem to be elements of originality, including colour scheme, legend and incorporation of additional elements - showing position of intake shutter, powerhouse and dam. It would seem not to be a copyright violation as the author is adding creative elements to basic information/data from original source. The page needs to be more careful about indicating source and nature of author's addition. Shyamal (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:DW - the color version infringes on the rights of the author of the original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It says "...The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected...." - I am aware though that this is always contentious. I am not however defending this too much as I certainly think a better map can be created without any copyright problems. Shyamal (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:DW - the color version infringes on the rights of the author of the original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Info Its under copyright by Dukes Press--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Russavia as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: China Airlines Cargo is the author of this, not the uploader.
It's a photo of a flat object that itself is in PD because it does not exceed the threshold of originality. According to {{PD-Art}} "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". Does this only apply to art? And where is the proof that the uploader didn't take the photo? RE rillke questions? 22:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Not entirely sure about scope, but if there's a use, then Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept per above; Carl Lindberg assessment seems accurate to me. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am the creator of this photograph and I no longer want this image available for common use. Hholl (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Used in one en.wikpedia page. It has useful interest. CC licenses are not revocable. --Bestiasonica (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed as kept. Free licensed by the photographer, in scope, in use. No reason to delete offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
File should be deleted because it is stil under copyright in the United States. Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyviolation, original image is from http://nazmiyalantiquerugs.com/detail-image/?image=42845hires Gsingh (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Singapore for 2D objects. According to the page I've just linked, 2D objects include a "painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work (emphasis mine). While this object does have its 2D drawing stick out of the surface a bit, it is in fact only a little bit, just like an engraving, etching, etc. The original object is not free in Singapore. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The used licence tag is not right for this image because the author of this work died NOT before January 1, 1943 79.237.182.3 07:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 190.161.112.248 as Speedy (reason= soy el autor de la fotografia, que las fotos fueron robados hace mucho tiempo, recuperaron en google imagen, me sorprendió mucho que son mios, no hay permiso, debo borrarlas todas de mi parte. |subpage=File:Buen viaje 049.jpg|day=8|month=April|year=2012). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetrostgoALC.jpg. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not licensed as claimed, copyright holder's terms of use [9] are not compatible with any free license. January (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.62.204.235 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't know, if the file is really in public domain. No year of death is given. Too young to assume that the photographer died before 1941 for EU-rights or before 1926 für US-rights - the shot is from 1925! Quedel (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
From website [[10]], unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is fortunate to have MORE than enough penis pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
File:Hermann Hesse - Lehr-Buchhandlung in Tübingen, Carl August Sonnewaldt (r) u. Prok, Heinrich Hermes.JPG
[edit]_u._Prok,_Heinrich_Hermes.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_u._Prok,_Heinrich_Hermes.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence given, that the photographer died before 1941 (for EU-countrys) or 1926 (for US). Why is the author more than 100 years dead (what the license-tag states)? Quedel (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
incorrect work. Not vectorized well Esceptic0 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The author of the poster died in 2002 http://artinvestment.ru/auctions/24110 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The author is Russian by heritage and residency, and according to the text of {{PD-Russia-2008}} this work is not public domain. She died in 1950 http://www.plakaty.ru/authors?id=81 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
CoD is copyrighted McZusatz (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. As long as I understand, File:Antranik-Grab.JPG is a scaled-down copy of this image in www.panoramio.com (© All Rights Reserved: Valeri Khachatryan). Takabeg (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded as the year 1900 work under Free Art License. In fact created in 1968, exposed at Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst under «© Images are copyright of their respective owners, assignees or others». NeoLexx (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- also duplicates:
- File:Thiruvalluvane.jpg
- File:திருவள்ளுவர்.jpg
Drawing or painting of unknown provenance. Unlikely "own work" claim. Description "it is the work of somebody" implies it is not really the uploader's own work as claimed by the tags. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
These images look fake. The background is File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg, the images of David Cameron and Boris Johnson in the foreground may well be copyvios.
January (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
These images were uploaded to this Flickr channel as all rights reserved on the same day they were uploaded to Commons [11], [12], [13]. From what I can see the uploader and Flickr user have not identified on either site as being the same person.
- File:Jason Kouchak and Duke Of Kent.jpg
- File:Jason Kouchak and Tom Stoppard.jpg
- File:Jason Kouchak Walking on Water.jpg
January (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
提交删除为误操作，请删除此页面。
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has Category:Toilet_signs in other languages. I will agree to the deletion of this file if the deletion other such files is also endorsed or a consensus is arrived at.Hindustanilanguage (talk)
- This isn't even a picture, this is just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint. This file is just useless. If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file. I'm also not the only one who noticed that this file is out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're not the only one on Commons (statement:If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file)- exemplified by the example you've cited yourself. I've uploaded a new image for the file and I hope this should settle the issue. Best wishes, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC).
- I reverted to first version. Please don't confuse deletion nominations by overwriting with completely different files. The new file seems also the result of photoshopping instead of being a real picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Points to be considered:
- Points to be considered:
- I reverted to first version. Please don't confuse deletion nominations by overwriting with completely different files. The new file seems also the result of photoshopping instead of being a real picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're not the only one on Commons (statement:If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file)- exemplified by the example you've cited yourself. I've uploaded a new image for the file and I hope this should settle the issue. Best wishes, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC).
- This isn't even a picture, this is just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint. This file is just useless. If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file. I'm also not the only one who noticed that this file is out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
-Is there not a need for a signboard in Hindi?
-My recent uploads should not be misread as "just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint" as stated above. It is full-fledged signboard.
-This can form part of an article, or can be referenced outside Wikiworld or simply the text can be copied and taken for a signboard.
-Take the case of File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf - This file was marked for deletion because of personal copyright violation (name of an individual being included in the certificate), I removed the name,address, phone number, etc and reuploaded another while the DR was still pending. The file was then 'kept'.
-I would not like to enter into editwarring with Ices but I request the admins to consider retaining the second upload.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC).
- You may consider uploading the new file under a new name, although I don't think the new file is in scope either, but overwriting the old file is a bad idea. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The fact it uses words instead of symbols doesn't mean per se it's out of scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Per previous DR. It's not my habit to repeat a DR, this is actually the first time. I believe this closure is a clear mistake. I request second opinion by another admin. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that the closure was actually too early, closer didn't give it 7 days, thus ignoring the normal procedure. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- 7 day time is no religiously binding rule. In the above DR discussion, I cited the example of a DR started in Nov'11 & closed in Mar'12 (5 months). PD Text issue clearly undisputed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
- This is not a 'PD-text' issue, this is a scope issue. I did not nominate for copyright reasons. There was no justification to close this DR too early and the closure didn't address the arguments in the DR. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- 7 day time is no religiously binding rule. In the above DR discussion, I cited the example of a DR started in Nov'11 & closed in Mar'12 (5 months). PD Text issue clearly undisputed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
- Nearly all uploads of Heyhello1234567 such as File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif were wrongly claimed as his original works. Yet they were restored as PD Text post DR and post deletion.One of the Commons admins was skeptical about restoring File:IconEliminate.gif because of the "scope" issue, yet it was restored speedily by an undeletion request. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
- Please stop distracting attention away from the real problem. We are not talking about copyright, we are talking about a file being *completely* useless. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nearly all uploads of Heyhello1234567 such as File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif were wrongly claimed as his original works. Yet they were restored as PD Text post DR and post deletion.One of the Commons admins was skeptical about restoring File:IconEliminate.gif because of the "scope" issue, yet it was restored speedily by an undeletion request. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
- Admins may kindly make a note of highly arrogant and aggressive nature of messages posted by this user:
- Admins may kindly make a note of highly arrogant and aggressive nature of messages posted by this user:
- "If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file" (- implying (s)he is the only one on commons, as stated above).
- (S)He reverted my reupload and doesn't want to look at all into my argument or example.
- (S)He renominated the file for deletion when an admin closed the discussion. Is (s)he looking for a rift or clash of admins?
- I explained cases where delays and early closures are possible on commons, but this does not satisfy him/her.
- I explained PD Text aspect - but (s)he just likes to dismiss this issue as well.
- I am explain a precedent pertaining to a user uploads and this again does not pacify deletion requester.In fact, no correlation or inferences are supposed to be drawn.
- He unilaterally terms my uploads to be *completely* useless even though I am the person who uploaded maximum number of autographs on Commons.
- Is anybody empowered to use words such as *completely* useless on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
- Renominations are not uncommon. Like users can use COM:UDR if they think a file should not have been deleted, users can also use a new DR if they think a file should not have been kept. There is nothing arrogant or aggressive in asking a second opinion. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is anybody empowered to use words such as *completely* useless on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
Delete This is not a sign like the other images, this is an Photoshop/MS Paint text box that adds no pictorial value of a sign to any articles and is therefore out of scope. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Although the nominator may say that this is not a copyright issue, I wouldn't hesitate to state that the file is a Textlogo. Whatever the language a sign uses, if there are not complex graphic symbols within, it should be considered as not ineligible for copyright. This is mostly common in signage system, where no authorship can be claimed for symbols (as pictograms) or typography that are part of a universal code. Fma12 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are so aware that nobody sees copyright problems, why do you post this comment? It doesn't add anything usefull to the debate. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Has this re-nomination added some useful to the debate? I also wonder.... Fma12 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are so aware that nobody sees copyright problems, why do you post this comment? It doesn't add anything usefull to the debate. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ices, I think that when one admin has given the judgment "kept", the matter is closed. Ices, I s'pose you should upload a few files, update the no. of filemoves as a filemover (now dismally low @ 69) before actively indulging in DRs and DR debates. After all, I would have saluted you or your friend Spiff, if you had uploaded a single worthwhile (or even worthless) pic on Commons, which you never ever thought of in your stint at the Commons. Unfortunately, you want to show to others that their face is terribly wrong when you don't have anything to offer straightaway from your very own side. Further, you were also blocked on Commons for massively terming Commons images as "out of Scope", which were actually not. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
Deleted. This is a simple, low resolution computer rendering of Hindi text which could be reproduced in formatted text easily, which would greatly increase its accessibility, editability, and print quality. It is also unused and has no apparent educational use (the uploader did not describe any plausible such use, I find the "copied and taken for a signboard" use quite absurd given the low resolution). The uploader is admonished to avoid aggressively attacking the nominator and focus on issues of policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The license is not correct; also this poster was made in the Ukraine in 1978 so it will still be copyrighted. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/yan1996001912/PP/ User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: no reason for copyright, contains only solid red background and an agitation slogan (PD-ineligible) as well as CoA (PD-RU-exempt) — NickK (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Sorry, no freedom of panorama for Georgia, this is a recent work [14] Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you always trying to undermine my images? All the images I've put are under the acceptable license. Author is giving the right to use under the license and why do you want to delete them? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not PD anymore due to changes in PD-Afghanistan. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I used the wayback machine to find the original document this photo came from. It says:
- Photos courtesy of ADP/E.
- and
- On April 6, 2009, members of Dare Noor District
Development Assembly, elders of Dodarak village, and representatives from the U.S. Agency for International Development-funded Alternative Development Program—Eastern Region (ADP/E), gathered to open a 60-kilowatt micro-hydro power plant driven by the stream.
- Funded by USAID. That does not qualify for {{US-USGov-USAID}}. It sounds like the Alternative Development Program is either an official Afghan government program, an international program, run by the UN, or an NGO. I'll try to find out more about it.
- FWIW of the six images we have of this power station, five are credited to ADP, one is credited to both USAID and ADP. If we had the time to look into this, we would might find that all six were taken at the same times, by a single USAID employee, attached to ADP. Geo Swan (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The image is still copyright in the United States and should not be on the Commons. Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on copyrights. The original uploader (Roisterer) claimed that it was public domain both in Australia and the US, that's all I can say. If that's not the case, please delete it.--Kompakt (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was used in hovik95.livejournal.com on Jan. 13th, 2012 at 3:09 AM. Is hovik95 is the same person as User:Hovik95 ? Or, is the uploader is the same person as User:Hovik95 ? Takabeg (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Me and User:Hovik95 are the same person. It is my old account, which I don't like using any more. Plus, it's not the same picture, it has more data on it than the one posted on my blog.--Yerevanci (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No real source for this map - "private collection" does not explain anything. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- A map created by me, No need of any sources..its own work..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Based on your own measurements? - I doubt it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see a similar map here -> http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/V5930E/V5930E05.htm --Sreejith K (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Based on your own measurements? - I doubt it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- A map created by me, No need of any sources..its own work..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete The image questioned & seen on the link is looking similar and much older versions are not identified, So delete......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The light installation has to be considered a copyrighted work of art, but cannot be covered by the FOP exemption of Germany. Thereby this image is a copyviolating derivative. Túrelio (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
= I do not agree. The picture shows a part of Gert Hof's work. But it wasn't an installation. It was a 6-minute-performance and was realized on the stage of designers Michalsky catwalk. Also the Women you can see were dressed by the fashion-designer and partly used by Gert Hof. On the picture you also can see the sign "MICHALSKY" on the stage. One could say, that the picture shows a co-work from Gert Hof and Michael Michalsky. Anyway. But i think, it certainly isn't a copyviolating derivate. Therefore i vote to let the picture where it is. thx. Peter --Peter.Wetter (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploader requested (but made a malformed DR). Same with all these photos:
- File:MetrostgoALC.jpg
- File:Palacio de la Moneda Nocturna.jpg
- File:Metro linea4 087.jpg
- File:Cruz del Tercer Milenio 085.jpg
- File:Buen viaje 049.jpg
- File:Metrolinea4 017.jpg
- File:Metre 032.jpg
- File:Panoramica plaza egaña.jpg
Licenses are not revocable so we can choose to keep but we can also chose to respect the wish of the user and delet. MGA73 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
For example on [15]: "I am Author,i do not post my pictures, by reason unused image" --MGA73 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File+talk%3AMetrostgoALC.jpg×tamp=20110723045015){kind=link}
Comment: Its very hard to say if they are copy vios because there are 3 cameras used--a Blackberry, a Canon and a Fuji. But the 2 pictures taken by the Fuji were taken by the same Fuji model. They are watermarked by J. Rodinis. But the thing is the author didn't say he doesn't take the images; he says he didn't post his images here because he doesn't post unused images here. But how do we know he didn't remove its uses on wikipedia? He did this at least once on Commons and I reverted it. IMP: He made the request from the same Commons account which uploaded the image. This makes me think he is the uploader after all and the copyright owner. So, I lean towards Keep . This has nothing to do with flickr because the uploader never did give a flickr source for these images at upload, I think. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
File:MetrostgoALC.jpg This file was initially tagged by 190.161.112.248 as Speedy (reason= soy el autor de la fotografia, que las fotos fueron robados hace mucho tiempo, recuperaron en google imagen, me sorprendió mucho que son mios, no hay permiso, debo borrarlas todas de mi parte). Merits some discussion, as there were already 2 earlier DRs. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panoramica plaza egaña.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The anonymous IP user says that his images were "stolen" a long time ago, that were recovered from Google images and that must be deleted. If that is true, then the edits done by User:E xpansion in 2011 are illogical to me. E xpansion never says that he is not the copyright holder of the photos. Note also that File:MetrostgoALC.jpg was taken and uploaded to Commons on the same day, hence it is very improbable that the image had been obtained from Google images cache. Jespinos (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
We had several files on de.wp from same photographer. Weßberge was active in 1925, so no hints given why this picture should be public domain. Too young to assume that. Quedel (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - he was the Stadtgartendirektor, probably not the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- We really need to find out whether Weßberge was the photographer and, if yes, when he did die. In Germany, the duration of protection for photos was 5 years til 1907. From 1907 on it was 10 years. Only in 1940 it was prolonged to 25 years.[16] --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you read § 137f (2) UrhG and s:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941, you'll see that that doesn't matter. --Rosenzweig τ 06:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Eventually tell what doesn't matter without forcing us to read external documents. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- § 137f (2) UrhG says that if a work (like a photograph) was protected in another EU member country on 1 July 1995, that work is protected in Germany until 70 years pma. In Spain, photographs were protected for 80 years pma since 1879. This essentially means that any photographs that may have lost copyright protection in Germany prior to 1995 are protected again since 1995, until 70 years pma. That's what the court in Hamburg (OLG) says. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. O.k., then we "only" need to find the death year of Weßberge. --Túrelio (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- § 137f (2) UrhG says that if a work (like a photograph) was protected in another EU member country on 1 July 1995, that work is protected in Germany until 70 years pma. In Spain, photographs were protected for 80 years pma since 1879. This essentially means that any photographs that may have lost copyright protection in Germany prior to 1995 are protected again since 1995, until 70 years pma. That's what the court in Hamburg (OLG) says. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Eventually tell what doesn't matter without forcing us to read external documents. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you read § 137f (2) UrhG and s:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941, you'll see that that doesn't matter. --Rosenzweig τ 06:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The screenshot displays at least two non-free logos: Dell and Google Chrome. Rprpr (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- It took quite a while to find them... Have you been at Category:Dell? There's Dell logo in every pic, in its full living glory. Either it's too simple, or no one cared until today. NVO (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep They're both de minimis; it took me forever to find either of them. In any case, the Dell logo is PD-Text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to the mentioned Wikipedia file the logo of Dell is not PD-Text but it is non-free. --Rprpr (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, according to that Wikipedia file, someone uploaded it using a non-free rationale. There's no evidence that there that anyone has claimed it's not PD-text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dell's Online Policies, Use Restrictions say: "The copyright in all material provided on this Site is held by Dell or by the original creator of the material." As the site includes the Dell logo its usage is also restricted. IMHO, unless a court decides that the logo is PD-text the restriction cannot be ignored. --Rprpr (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- By that standard, they're also claiming copyright on the letter A.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Policies say "by Dell or by the original creator of the material". It's clear that they can't claim copyright on the letter A as it is in public domain. But they can claim copyright on the material they created. The logo is Dell's creation. You or I can say that the logo is too simple for copyrighting but our opinion is irrelevant here. --Rprpr (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- They can claim a copyright on anything they please. But they can't get a copyright on single words or pictures of single words. It is Commons practice to keep many logos as PD-Text based on our own judgment of the standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Policies say "by Dell or by the original creator of the material". It's clear that they can't claim copyright on the letter A as it is in public domain. But they can claim copyright on the material they created. The logo is Dell's creation. You or I can say that the logo is too simple for copyrighting but our opinion is irrelevant here. --Rprpr (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- By that standard, they're also claiming copyright on the letter A.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dell's Online Policies, Use Restrictions say: "The copyright in all material provided on this Site is held by Dell or by the original creator of the material." As the site includes the Dell logo its usage is also restricted. IMHO, unless a court decides that the logo is PD-text the restriction cannot be ignored. --Rprpr (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, according to that Wikipedia file, someone uploaded it using a non-free rationale. There's no evidence that there that anyone has claimed it's not PD-text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- What about the logo of Google Chrome also shown on the screenshot? It is definitely not free. --Rprpr (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I said above it's de minimis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ubuntu's web site is not under a free licence. Hidro (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a screenshot of free software. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license. Other issues, besides your rationale, have been covered in the discussion above. --Exeva (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
-Oryx-packacge.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Oryx-packacge.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probably derivative work Avron (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
-Oryx-packacge.png){kind=link}
- This is my own photo. Common. Arz (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You made the picture of the kneeling man?--Avron (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is my own photo. Common. Arz (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
-Oryx-packacge.png){kind=link}
It is an institucional logo as seen in http://www.bcamath.org/en/, that can´t be licensed by an individual person.--Antur (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with you that an individual can't attribute the copyright to himself in cases like this, but substituting the tag by a Template:PD-textlogo should be enough. The logo itself does not meet the threshold of originality to be unfree. Fma12 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Paintings by Tapand
[edit]- File:Lady_Diana_of_Wales.jpg
- File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmad_Zahir_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg
- File:President_Hamid_Karzai_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.jpg
- File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png
First, note that:
- the last one has already been deleted. You may want to have a look at its deletion request and its current undeletion request.
- Image:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg has been kept following a former deletion request
Now my reasons for this DR:
Tapand is an Afghan artist that is still alive despite the PD-old and PD-Art template on Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.jpg. I don't doubt that PRTkand and Executioner, the uploaders, took the photographs. But, since these images are faithful representations of Tapand paintings, Tapand owns a big part (if not all) of the copyright, and this makes these pictures unsuitable for Commons.
But, to make things more difficult, here is what Madmax32 said: "Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works so the works are not obliged to be protected by copyright". This seems to have triggered the keeping of Image:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg.
My opinion: even if Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention, which induces that we are not obliged to respect Afghan authors' copyrights, I believe this would be a bad idea to consider Afghan works as Public Domain or something similar. We should ensure that these paintings are protected according to local Afghan copyright laws (which remain to be determined). Therefore, I propose that these images be 
Deleted because they show the work of a living artist which, unless proved otherwise, is certainly copyrighted. — Xavier, 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that I own these paintings, they are no where else to be found. Tapand is no longer the copyright holder because he sold them to me, which means he sold the copyright to me.--Executioner 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I question whether that is how copyright works. I question your assertion that your ownership of the painting means you own the copyright on it, unless you explicitly negotiated for that with the original copyright holder. Artists sue the owners of their work when the owners want to modify them, or display them in a manner the artist considers inappropriate, or damaging to their reputation.
- It is not that common for artists to sue owners. But if you look around you will find instances. Here in Toronto a big mall -- unusually large for the time was built, right downtown. It has celings about eight stories tall down its central hallway -- which is also quite wide. An artist was commissioned to create models of about 100 Canada Geese. They weren't duplicates. They were hung to look like a big V of Geese, from one end of the mall, to the other (The mall is about half a kilometer long.) The owner made a big deal about this artwork. It was expensive. But, about a decade later, when the thrill of ownership was over, whoever had the responsibility of decorating the mall for Christmas hung all kinds of Christmas decorations from the Geese.
- The owners argued, as you seem to be arguing, that they owned the Geese, so they could do whatever they wanted with them. The court sided with the artist.
- Then the owners decided that they would move all the Geese to one end of the mall, so they could hang those Christmas decorations. The artist sued again. The Geese have been moved, and are now hung as if the flock was taking off from a fountain at one end of the mall. I don't know if the artist lost, or if he reached a settlement with the owners.
- Over on the wikipedia contributors are proscribed from uploading copyright material that hasn't been liscenced under a free liscence. And contributors are not supposed to get around the liscensing restrictions of copyright holders, by using links to unauthorized material as references -- when the copyright holder has the article on a member's only site. Using copyright material without authorization is violation of the law. Linking to copyright material elsewhere, that is being mirrored by someone else, in violation of the law, is not a violation of the law. But the wikipedia doesn't do this, because it looks bad.
- Similarly, even if, for the sake of argument, under the copyright laws where our uploader lives, he or she does own the copyright for a work of art, just because they bought the physical object, I think we should be careful about uploading images of that work of art, because it gives the appearance of not respecting copyright -- just as linking to unliscenced mirrors does -- even though that too is legal. Geo Swan 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete The sale of paintings does not imply the sale of the copyright. An artist can sell the copyright to the buyer of an artwork, or to anyone else for that matter. It is very rare for an artist to also sell the copyright to the buyer of a painting, but quite common for people owning artworks to (mistakenly) think they have copyright over them. Is there any evidence of the transfer of the copyright? --Simonxag 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment To Xavier, Geo Swan, Simonxag, the best example for you to understand how copyright works, please see information about this image. Harrison Forman created the work but the copyright holder is the current owner, the American Geographical Society Library of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries or simply University of Wisconsin. Similarly, Tapand (an artist) created these works but the copyright holder is me because I claim to owning them now.--Executioner 21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Copyright suppose to mean claim of ownership. I don't understand how this works. I thought that since I owned the paintings that I also owned the copyrights. In Asia for less than $100 you can get your own photo turned into a large sized painting... there are many shops who do this. I can give you telephone numbers of some shops and they can explain all this. Once you pay for the painting then it's all yours. These paintings are not that important for me to keep them here, I just thought that I could share them with people who may want to admire the work. Isn't this one (Image:Kamoli Khujandi.jpg) same as mines? And if so, then why is that not deleted? If you really must delete my paintings from here then I guess I will not make more arguments, I give up on this.--Executioner 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't have to make a stand on whom the copyright belongs to. I will make my vote on the basis of the legal limbo the lack of Afghan ratification of Berne has created. My prime concern is the highest degree of availability. __meco 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Owning a painting is never ever the same as owning the copyright, however, this can be transfered also. And like it or not, there usually is no mention of the word "copyright" when the transfer takes place. That's how most of the world works. There's not always going to be formal statement to show the transfer of rights. So we can take it or leave it. Rocket000 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It all depends on the circumstances. In some cases owning a painting that was created by someone else is not the same as owning copyrights, but, in some cases it is. As I explained to Xavier, Geo Swan and Simonxag above that Harrison Forman created images in the 1960's and now the copyright holder is the University of Wisconsin because it has legal possesion of them. [17] Similarly, Tapand (an unknown artist) painted these but now I have legal possesion of them. I took the photographed images of the piantings and uploaded them here. Xavier, asked to Delete these images because they show the work of a living artist [18] and that is not a valid reason to delete images.
- I will give an easy example (to everyone). Let's say you buy a Ford Mustang vehicle from a Ford auto dealership. You become instant owner of that car as soon as you buy it and pay for it. The Ford Motor Company does not own it anymore, it only owns copyrights to the name "FORD". If you take photo of your Mustang car and upload it to Commons there is no reason to delete the file. The people asking to delete my images here are basically arguing that Ford Motor Company is the copyright holder of your Ford Mustang because that company created it. That is not how it suppose to be. Cars and painitings are both called "things" so one cannot say they are not the same.--Executioner 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your University of Wisconsin image doesn't say the University of Wisconsin owns the copyright. It says the uploader is asserting "w:fair use. Geo Swan 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- You failed to understand the given information. If you read here, it says: Photographer = Forman, Harrison and Rights = The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. That means Harrison Forman visited Kabul in 1969 and took the photos but the copyright holder of these photos is the University of Wisconsin. At the very bottom of the photo it also indicates that the University of Wisconsin is the owner of the photos. The fair use license is irrelevant in this topic.--Executioner 23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see the Libraries usage policy? It states:
- Access to Library owned resources is governed by license agreements which restrict use to the UWM community and to individuals who use the UWM Libraries facilities. Anyone using the UWM Libraries facilities is welcome to use these resources on-site but off campus or remote use is restricted to UWM faculty, staff and students. Licensed electronic resources are owned by independent providers and are protected by copyright and other laws.
- Did you see that their gallery of images in their Harrison Forman collection has a link for those who want to order liscensed high resolution copies? It states:
- The low-resolution images available from the UWM Libraries Digital Collections website may be copied by individuals or libraries for personal use, research, teaching or any "fair use" as defined by copyright law. Low resolution images can be downloaded for no charge by “right-clicking” with your mouse on the full image and saving to your local computer.
- Excuse me but I believe the conditions under which the University of Wisconsin released the low resolution versions of these images stops short of what you have asserted they have released. I would argue that it stops short of the requirements to be hosted on commons. The wikipedia proper, as opposed to the commons, does allow a limited amount of "fair use" images. Geo Swan 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What are you trying to tell me with all that unessary writings? Are the images owned by UWM or not? Just type yes or no.--Executioner 10:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete If there was no explicit transfer of copyright, then the copyright remains with the artist. This is a cut-and-dry case. Selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. Mangostar 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Mangostar is a very new user. He/she began just last month in March 2008. [19] His/her reason for deletion doesn't make any sense to me. The paintings were not and never copyrighted before they fell in my hands, so how can the copyright be transferred? Mongostar has admitted that selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. I own these never before-copyrighted drawings and so I should be allowed to upload images of my drawings.--Executioner 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is and isn't copyright varies by jurisdiction. But 163 countries have signed the Berne Convention.
- Note what the article on the Berne Convention on copyrights says.
- Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force at creation, without being asserted or declared: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors were treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country that signed the Convention.
- My understanding is that it is US law that is most important to the consideration of copyright on the wikipedia, because the servers are in the USA. Therefore Taipand has the same "moral right" to his work, when it is hosted on servers in the USA as if he had created it in the USA.
- Do I know, for a certain fact, whether a photo of a painting violates the painter's rights?
- I am not claiming to know what the copyright rules are in Afghanistan. List of parties to international copyright treaties says that Afghanistan is not a Berne signatory, but has observer status under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. I don't know what "observer status" means. But my reading of these articles is that if Afghanistan was a signatory to this agreement all of the intellectual property of your artist Taipand would be born copyright -- same as in the rest of the world.
- Having said that, I have read many of your observations on copyright, and, no offense, I am concerned that you hold serious misconceptions on how copyright works in the USA. You might find it worthwhile to read w:Feist v. Rural. Geo Swan 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia and no USA's copyright law does not apply to Afghanistan. Afghanistan's copyright law would be similar as to other Middle Eastern or neighboring countries, if whenever it is introduced. If US law was the utlimate one than why are there different laws for each country? "Observer status" there means it is not a signatory, not part of the convention so you can't make anything out of it. I'm from USA and I know the law on copyrights, and since you're a Canadian, you probably don't know our law in USA.
- I've read w:Feist v. Rural. It says: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)[1], commonly called just Feist v. Rural, was a United States Supreme Court case in which Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural had sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed. Similarly, the paintings by Tapand are not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement exists.--Executioner 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It appears that Afghanistan has no copyright laws at all. See this information from WIPO, and also w:Afghanistan and copyright issues. MichaelMaggs 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Re-opening
Not first published in Afghanistan. Likely the uploader bought this artwork in Afghanistan and published it online. For Berne purposes this makes the country of first publication the home country of the uploader. See Commons:Village_pump#Free_for_all_on_Afghanistan_images.3F.21.3F. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can tell, they've never been published as defined in the law, which needs the consent of the artist. And to quote the US Copyright Office, All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. Works that are first published in the United States or in a country with which we have a copyright treaty or that are created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which we have a copyright treaty are also protected (...).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it was sold in Afghanistan, that is publishing it. Country of first publication would be Afghanistan. Buying artwork does not transfer copyright; and if there was none to begin with it is certainly not created by purchasing works. Still Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Berne Convention, Article 3 says "The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." I see no way to interpret that as saying that selling the original is publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I do. Exhibiting a work is mentioned as not being published, but not selling it -- that would seem to count as published. And the sale was by consent, presumably. The author has received typical economic compensation... that is publishing it to me. Offering for sale is explicitly part of the U.S. definition, so it is most definitely considered as published in Afghanistan by U.S. copyright rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It specifically mentions copies. Publication is something restricted to the artist; since I can legally sell the original, selling the original can't be publication. Unpublished manuscripts get sold all the time without jeopardizing the rights of the authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The original is a "copy", by U.S. copyright law definitions. This paper goes into the topic in depth. Even by the definition as conjured by the courts before 1978, the original author selling the work to the public was considered publication (there is a Nimmer quote in that paper). The key is offering it to sale to the general public -- manuscripts are not directly offered for sale by the original author, usually. Sale normally doesn't jeopardize the rights, either. But an Afghan author would not expect to have any such rights for works sold in Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - These images were captured in Afghanistan by someone I personally know, they are camera pictures of paintings that were made by a local Afghan artist (Tapand). The original paintings are found at the governor's palace in Kandahar [20], [21] (File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg), at the Presidential palace in Kabul, and at some other government locations inside Afghanistan. The current owner is Afghanistan's government and that nation has no copyright law. See {{PD-Afghanistan}}--Officer (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, first publication (i.c. sale) was in Afghanistan, by an Afghan, thus Afghan copyright applies. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Paintings by Tapand
[edit]- File:Lady_Diana_of_Wales.jpg
- File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmad_Zahir_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg
- File:President_Hamid_Karzai_of_Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.jpg
- File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png
Time to revisit this as these paintings are now copyrighted due to changes in PD-Afghanistan. Previous discussion accessible by collapsible tab above. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I have followed the links and see that Afghanistan now has a "Law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers". However, I have read the online translation, and the law appears to give rather limited protection. In particular, Article 10 reads "The Author shall enjoy the provision of this Law as long as his work has not been published, printed or broadcast before Afghanistan in any other country." As these works appear to have been first published at Commons, on servers held in the United States, the artist seems to me to be unable to claim a copyright in them. That being so, I am at a loss to see what prevents the owner of the paintings, Executioner, now called Officer, from claiming (and giving up) his own copyright in any photographs he takes of them. I am not convinced by case law from other countries, and the international conventions do not create supranational copyrights. As Officer has donated his images to Commons, is there really a problem? Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- If a work was first published in another country, then it would not qualify for PD-Afghanistan in the first place, and would be copyrighted under the terms of that other country (almost all of which are Berne Convention signatories). The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright -- the concepts are distinct, and can be transferred separately. Usually these days, laws are written so that the sale of an object does not imply the transfer of copyright. The Afghan law does not state that in so many words, but Article 12 seems to require that all transfers of copyright must be in writing with an explicit timeframe mentioned (and Article 36 seems to forbid a total transfer of rights for "future" works). As the owner of the object, User:Officer likely has a certain number of rights in many countries, but the unfettered use of the copyright is not one of them, at least inside Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- If a work was first published in another country, then it would not qualify for PD-Afghanistan in the first place, and would be copyrighted under the terms of that other country (almost all of which are Berne Convention signatories). The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright -- the concepts are distinct, and can be transferred separately. Usually these days, laws are written so that the sale of an object does not imply the transfer of copyright. The Afghan law does not state that in so many words, but Article 12 seems to require that all transfers of copyright must be in writing with an explicit timeframe mentioned (and Article 36 seems to forbid a total transfer of rights for "future" works). As the owner of the object, User:Officer likely has a certain number of rights in many countries, but the unfettered use of the copyright is not one of them, at least inside Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This one (File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg) was painted on the outside wall of the Governor's Palace in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I snapped the photo of it. I'm not sure but I think the wall has since been painted over or something, you may be able to find a different version of this image in news reports or something being shown on the wall. I'm also not sure if there is any other fine version of this because at the time when I took the photo not many people used cameras in southern Afghanistan. The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [22], [23], [24]. I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. Isafmedia uploaded the same images to Flickr, which is not copyright violation, and so my uploads should also not be copyright violation.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Those would not be a copyright violation outside Afghanistan, and even in Afghanistan there may be some equivalent of "fair use", but ... unless Tapand transferred his copyright to you (which as mentioned above seems to require a written notice), or Tapand agrees to license them himself, they would not be "free" in our definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as the license suggests these files are copyrighted for life + 50 or publication + 50 (if author is not known) unless they can be tagged with some other license (such as through OTRS). PD-Afghanistan cannot be used here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- That said, File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg appears to be old enough if made in 1747. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not, it's clearly as modern as the rest. It's supposed to be depicting an historical event of 1747, not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- It qualifies as PD-Afghanistan because it was created before 1943 according to this.--Officer (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not, it's clearly as modern as the rest. It's supposed to be depicting an historical event of 1747, not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- That said, File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg appears to be old enough if made in 1747. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all; these ought to have been deleted long ago anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment One very murky aspect is if User:Officer bought some of these original works prior to the 2008 implementation date of their copyright law -- it's hard to say if that would have been considered to transfer the copyright as well, as that right would not have existed at all at the time, and would not have been a consideration. Any law requiring a written transfer would not be applicable to pre-2008 acts though. It's hard to say if the law simply granted the author a new right regardless of having previously sold the work, or if that would be deemed to have been transferred as well. The law doesn't have much in the way of transitional clauses dealing with situations like that. But, it sounds like most of these are photos of paintings which are owned by the government, so I'm not sure if that ambiguity applies here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is a very logical answer to the problem you raise: if there was no copyright, and transfer of copyright wasn't a consideration as you rightly say, then of course it didn't get transferred. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist. And the new law obviously speaks of authors, not of owners, so the author and not the owner is the person to whom the retroactive restitution of copyright applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The copyright existed, they were protected under US copyright law before 2008 because I was the first person to publish them in the US. Author and owner should be the same when it involves purchasing paintings from the painter. Attribution goes to the person who paints a painting and permission is required from whoever owns them.--Officer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- If he sold it in Afghanistan, that is usually considered publishing -- even the offering for sale is, under current U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The general meaning of publication is when the work is published in the media. If one wants to add exhibiting as publication then one would need to show some kind of proof that it was published inside Afghanistan. I wonder what's so important that people find about these silly paintings, they are nothing special. You can walk into any art store and find things like this for as low as $5.--Officer (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Buying a painting doesn't mean you own the copyright. Artists can make multiple identical paintings. We would need proof of rights transfer perhaps. Just because it is sold cheap doesn't mean it is freely licensed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exhibiting a painting is not necessarily publication. *Selling* a painting is something else altogether. Publishing via the media is not a requirement at all. For the Berne Convention, publication is making the work available to the public in a manner sufficient to “satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” Offering it for sale, for something like a painting (different nature than a book), would probably qualify -- anyone is able to buy it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg was painted on a wall in the city of Kandahar in Afghanistan before 2008 but it was removed (painted over) and is not visible any more. The creator is unknown. Can we keep this under any license? Is it copyrightable?--Officer (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The general meaning of publication is when the work is published in the media. If one wants to add exhibiting as publication then one would need to show some kind of proof that it was published inside Afghanistan. I wonder what's so important that people find about these silly paintings, they are nothing special. You can walk into any art store and find things like this for as low as $5.--Officer (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- If he sold it in Afghanistan, that is usually considered publishing -- even the offering for sale is, under current U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The copyright existed, they were protected under US copyright law before 2008 because I was the first person to publish them in the US. Author and owner should be the same when it involves purchasing paintings from the painter. Attribution goes to the person who paints a painting and permission is required from whoever owns them.--Officer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is a very logical answer to the problem you raise: if there was no copyright, and transfer of copyright wasn't a consideration as you rightly say, then of course it didn't get transferred. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist. And the new law obviously speaks of authors, not of owners, so the author and not the owner is the person to whom the retroactive restitution of copyright applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg&oldid=5779368){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg&diff=4713894&oldid=4698776){kind=link}
BTW, This is another more general problem with this set of images: hardly any of the "paintings" in question here are actually original. For instance, File:Lady_Diana_of_Wales.jpg is obviously a derivative work made after some photograph, of unknown provenance (likely copyrighted); same goes for File:Ahmad Zahir of Afghanistan.jpg; File:King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan.jpg is copied after the old photograph seen here and elsewhere on the web (likely PD); File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg is a very poor quality copy after en:File:King Mohammad Zahir Shah.JPG (PD status currently unconfirmed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. It is anonymous "artwork" on a wall, someone used Photoshop to edit it. Whatever it looks to you is not important, and I suggest you stop worrying about what my motive is. I have over 1,300 legitimate uploads here. PRTkand is my brother and I made that clear a long time ago to another disruptive user.[27]
- Being displayed inside Kandahar Governor's Palace or inside Kandahar Museum is the same shit, because in his opinion Kandahar Governor's Palace "is museum" since all the artworks are housed there. [28] [29], [30] In the eyes of a Westerner that place appears like a museum in Kandahar so it is safe to call it Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan. What's the difference and why is this a big deal that you had to bring up?
- When someone says he or she owns the painting it means he or she owns the painting, not the copyright. Do you have evidence that someone else owns it?
- No body claimed that these are original and only a fool would think that this Afghan painter went back in time to paint these people, then come back and paint current Afghan President. Of course the painter looked at various of other works and using his own hands created these works. He is the author of these works and something like that shouldn't be treated as derivative work.--Officer (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Afghanistan is not a signatory to the Berns Convention and the current PD-Afghanistan is vague.--Officer (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Your "brother" (i.e. you) claimed that he owned not just the others, but also the one you now claim was an anonymous wall painting [31]. Did he physically own that building? Was that wall painting on the Governor's Palace/Museum/whatever? What about the other ones that are in that building: he also claimed he owned those. Does he own the Governor's Palace and the artworks inside it? Also, earlier on this page you clearly said you took that photo off the wall [32]. So why did your brother claim it was his? Or are your brother and you the same person after all? Moreover, in the first deletion request (collapsed at the top of this page) you said the other images were paintings that you physically bought from the artist, Tapand. In this discussion, you have claimed that the paintings are in the Palace/Museum/whatever, and you merely took photographs of them. So, which is it? You are just stumbling from one lie into the other, and you are mixing them up now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are trying to accuse me of being a liar or a fraud, I could have easily cut out the painter's name and claimed that I made these, there is no way of verifying that. But from being too honest I told everything in details and that proves that I'm not a fraud. You need to understand that sometimes the truth seems like a lie due to certain circumstances. Whether PRTkand is me or not is irrelevant and I don't need to convince you on that. If I say that is not me then it is not me. Looking at my first comment above, I've stated that "I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. You have no idea which is original or which is a copy. You're just taking wild guesses. Is it possible that in these days somebody can take my file and enlarge it and then hang it inside their house? If another person said or says he owns them he may be telling the truth and I don't care because whoever I gave these files to are the owners as I gave them permission to do what they want with them. In fact, I have dozens of others by the same painter which are not found anywhere else.--Officer (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, which is the original and which is the copy? Won't you tell us? You very clearly said earlier the paintings in the palace where the originals and you took photographs from them. Now you say you own the orginals and the paintings in the palace may be copies from your photographs? Were you lying then or are you lying now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Finding out which one is original is again irrelevant and cannot be determined by us because I don't know myself who made those in the Palace. There may be copies everywhere now. I have to be there and closely inspect it to make sure. You are arguing but not paying attention to the point. The Palace only has a few but I have dozens.--Officer (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- So you were lying when you said you took your photographs off the ones in the palace, is that right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. I said this 1 particular (File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg) was painted on the wall of the palace. You can see here, paintings by the same person were painted on the wall of a PRT in Kandahar.--Officer (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't try to muddy the waters further. Who do you think you're kidding? You made that claim also about the others, further up this page. Quote: "The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [...] I took these with my camera." Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace" was simply meant to say that they are publicized (published) inside Afghanistan. If you have a case prove it otherwise go do something else because with me you won't get anywhere.--Officer (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't try to muddy the waters further. Who do you think you're kidding? You made that claim also about the others, further up this page. Quote: "The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [...] I took these with my camera." Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. I said this 1 particular (File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg) was painted on the wall of the palace. You can see here, paintings by the same person were painted on the wall of a PRT in Kandahar.--Officer (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- So you were lying when you said you took your photographs off the ones in the palace, is that right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Finding out which one is original is again irrelevant and cannot be determined by us because I don't know myself who made those in the Palace. There may be copies everywhere now. I have to be there and closely inspect it to make sure. You are arguing but not paying attention to the point. The Palace only has a few but I have dozens.--Officer (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteIt's life+50. All the rest of this discussion seems irrelevant. Certainly Berne is; it's Commons policy, not US copyright law that we're worried about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- If there is more than one original work of art, however similar it may be to others, it can be considered in its own right. Copied from an indented reply I have just left above: "This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it. Um... yes they are; that is a misreading. The owner of the physical object has no claim on the copyright whatsoever, unless the copyright was also transferred separately (which usually needs to be explicit). If someone just took photographs of works which existed in Afghanistan, then there is no physical ownership even. (If these works have since been destroyed, yes, this is a shame -- but the law, in Afghanistan, is now giving the reproduction rights to the original artist.)Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of these contemporary paintings are PD-Afghanistan based on the date of the original works that were published, see this and this. This includes the following: File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg and File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png.--Officer (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg, it was first published in a 1943 Afghan book (page 90 of Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba / Ahmad Shah Baba-ye Afghan[33]), that was written by w:Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar, with paintings by Afghan artist Abdul Ghafur Breshna.[34] [35] File:The Char-Chatta Bazaar of Kabul.jpg It appears that this was also published in the same book so both of these qualify as PD-Afghanistan.--Officer (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The original works may be PD, but Tapand's versions would be derivative works which have their own copyright. (If the originals were not PD, then distribution is subject to the permission of the author of the original as well.) They really need to be exact copies, such that there is no extra original expression in the new version. Straight-on photographs of a painting have been ruled to be such a case in the U.S. (no new expression) but something as simple as a mezzotint of a painting has been ruled to have its own creativity; see here. While I'm sure there are little or no cases in Afghan law yet, something like the above is usual under the Berne Convention, which it seems that Afghanistan is targeting, and the Afghan law does say that derivative works are copyrighted so far as the expression in the new version which is "differentiated" from the original. File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg looks very close I have to admit, but as the other example you found is very small it's hard to tell. If it's a re-drawn version, it's probably copyrighted, if it was basically a photocopy of the original with his signature added, maybe not. You almost suspect that there is an original photograph which both are based on (drawings based on photos like that are still derivative works though). If the original works are PD, then those can be uploaded, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Afghan law, but under US law, generally reproductions of public domain items are not copyrighted, per L Batlin and Sons v Snyder and Bridgeman v Corel, however there is a case[36] involving transferring a work from one medium to another (in this case a canvas painting to Mezzotint) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted There are two possibilities:
- If the publication on Commons of these images predates any Afghan copyright, then the publication of these images created a USA copyright in each of the paintings. Those copyrights are owned by the artist. This happened because publication of a copy or replica will constitute publication of the original if it has not previously been published. It is well known that under Bridgeman vs Corel the mere copying of a painting does not give rise to a copyright for the photograph, so the photographer has no rights.
- On the other hand, it is possible that the works were first published in Afghanistan and are copyrighted under Afghan law.
In either case, the copyright belongs to the artist and the photographer has no rights. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)