Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/09/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
user request. Sorry for the trouble. Shivashree (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy delete -- empty gallery . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the source given seems no longer available, there is no clue of the original author. If the image is taken in 1931 there is no clue if it's PD yet. Funfood ␌ 13:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is available, but i've added a better link here. this photo was part of a family presentation stated that the photo was taken in 1931, as you can see in the link. I've added the specific link to the photo as well. and I've changed it to PD-Israel as it was taken in Haifa. Thank you Itzuvit (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, I think the {{PD-Israel}} is clearly justified.--Funfood ␌ 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Taken 1931 in Israel, PD-Isreal applies Funfood ␌ 16:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Free Happier-Better-Person-without-Religion-agnostic-Christianity-Islamic-perspectives.pdf
[edit]Enlighten me: Is this kind of texts kept by Commons? Until now, I´ve only seen pdf´s of historical documents or texts of notable authors, but this seems to be rather a private statement. It aims to be educational, though. (And the deletion proposal is solely based on technical consideration, I don´t mind the content at all and wouldn´t have nominated it for deletion had it been properly categorised) Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This file is copyrighted and has to be speedy deleted.--Funfood ␌ 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted document. Funfood ␌ 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Incompatible with public doamin claim, as the author is stated to have died in 1969, which is less than 70 years ago. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio Courcelles 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Skannad bild av skivomslag. Rex Sueciæ (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Album cover. INeverCry 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
this is obviously a movie poster, it is unlikely the uploaded has permission to release it to be used freely. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No free images can exist of an as-yet-unreleased product. It does not ship until late September so the only images around are press photographs. Therefore this is a clear copyright infringement Biker Biker (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep The source clearly states that it is no photo, but "Renderings Based on Leaked Parts" --Cqdx (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yep, it's a rendering - so why delete it? Please remove it quickly. --Lolametro (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The image is not an Apple press photo but it's rendered by Blackpool Creative (as shown in the image desc.). This iPhone-image was leaked/created two months ago (as seen on the imagesource) - that's the proof. [de: Das Bild ist kein Pressefoto von Apple, sondern von Blackpool Creative gerendert (siehe auch Bildbeschreibung). Dieses iPhone-Bild wurde vor 2 Monaten geleakt/erstellt (siehe Bildquelle)- das ist der Beweis. Danke.]
Kept: Obviously no original photo, but a montage Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
PNG version availibale, no one is using this jpg file at the moment. Lolametro (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete Looks bad compared to PNG version, no reason to keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekich (talk • contribs) 20:49:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Metadaten müssen korrigiert werden Sepp de Bler (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Die Farbe ist auch verloren gegangen, vielleicht findet die sich noch...? --Atamari (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
at least two of the major elements of this image -- the blind chinese crested hound and that particular image of a mo'ai -- are copyvios. DS (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -- speedy delete . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
image used only in attack page that has been deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted music video not by LG, (see this. It belongs to Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Cette image est une capture d'écran provenant de Youtube. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand Italian. The argument is invalid.--85.103.127.39 15:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ce n'est pas de l'italien mais du français. Et l'argument est bel et bien valide. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- LOL at the inability to distinguish between French and Italian. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. This should be deleted. Credulity (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Translation in English: "This image is a screenshot from Youtube." VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the image page claims cites Youtube as the source. Since Youtube most certainly does not hold copyright on this image. There is no evidence to support the claim that this image is licensed under a Wikimedia-compatible free license. VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with VQuakr Javad|Talk (23 Shahrivar 1391) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Can be kept if the movie Innocence of Muslims is distributed with a free licence: to be checked... ----MGuf (d) 09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with VQuakr & MGuf. --sitic (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete caps. --Cemallamec (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Useful. Mightymights (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - MGuf has an excellent point, but delet at this time as copyright violation. Clear and simple..--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Image taken from Y tube very useful (80.195.184.28 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC))
- see : [1]
- Delete. Currently there is no indication that the movie is under a free or similar licence. Oleg (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio. Rights belong to movie producer; might go under fair-use, but not on Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No content, simply a circular redirect to category page where it also appears mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been creating those so that users can be redirected to specific / correct category. Others have created too. For that, I've named the pages that I think most would use in the search. I think that for example an user who comes here for the first time, doesn't know to write Category:Keikogi in the search, he/she writes Keikogi. It's also much more convenient to write in the search just the object's name, as opposed to category:etc.. and it will take you to the right category. I thought this was an common practice here. That's why I have created them, but if that's wrong (which I don't understand), go ahead and delete them. Hoikka1 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename, wrong place, wrong description, need deletion for new upload Hubertl (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This file is a suspected copyright violation. It is completely same as http://www.city.iwakuni.yamaguchi.jp/html/toshikei/otakeshi%20ogata.jpg -Bsx (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that a copyright is owned by Iwakuni City, Japan.--Yozyi (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete In ja,岩国南バイパスと岩国大竹道路/大竹市小方付近.Copyright vio.--Los688 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This file is NOT copy-permitted.--♥ゆいしあす♥ 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
wikisource wants djvu files with OCR layers, this file doesnt have OCR Xaxafrad (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, please delete all the other djvu files of the urantia book, located in their own category (there are 198 files). Xaxafrad (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OCR can be made, not need to delete this. Yann (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
SVG bug, not used in any article. Leyo 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed the bug and replaced the one use of File:Methyldiglycol.png with this file. Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Better, but the atoms labels are still not very well positioned, particularly the left “O”. --Leyo 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- A minor issue, but I can see what you mean. I have adjusted the atom label alignments. Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Better, but the atoms labels are still not very well positioned, particularly the left “O”. --Leyo 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Leyo 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance, but how can the flag of a country be out of scope? - dcljr (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete inferior. Fry1989 eh? 23:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
higher quality SVG exists. Iketsi (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete SVG exists! --Zebra848 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Spanish text in a jpg, only partially readable. Out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Fake logo for a non-existent event uploaded by serial sock puppeteer Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs). CT Cooper · talk 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
BadJPG, better alternatives in Category:Butyl butyrate. Leyo 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Yikes, what an artifacted mess. File:Butyl butyrate 3D ball.png looks nice. DMacks (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality, most likely copyrighted image/screenshot. Sarah (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this picture should not be deleted because it shows women in her panties. not all things are HQ, this was the only HQ this had, besides i made it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerspyin1 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. INeverCry 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Гриб.JPG. Riley Huntley (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: exact duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused picture of an unidentified person, single upload from user, very small and out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No source, the uploader seems to be using this to bypass this DR, he removed that file on a Japanese Wikipedia page and replaced it with this one after I nominated his other file for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Picture frame is three-dimensional and of unknown copyright status, meaning the photographer might hold a copyright on this photograph. A crop showing just the 1859 photo contained within has already been uploaded. Powers (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- In case you aren't aware, I was the one who uploaded this photo and asked another editor (Fallschirmjäger) to crop the frame and upload a new version with translucid background.[2] Oviously, a daguerreotype taken in 1859 has no copyright. --Lecen (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously. Which is why I didn't nominate that one for deletion. I did nominate this one, because the photographer retains a copyright on this photograph of a three-dimensional object. Powers (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The frame is probably de minimis, and can be cropped if needed. Yann (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted: as obvious case of 3D frame in a 2D reproduction of a PD image ({{PD-Art}} wasn't used but should have been; I've added it to the cropped version). NB the cropped version could have been uploaded over the original, and tagged {{Non-free frame revdel}}. Rd232 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Newfoundland Tricolour.svg Fry1989 eh? 00:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Invalid claim of ownership. Image is not online, so there's no way to verify that the rightsholder has placed this under a free license. C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Шеврон отряда был изменен в марте 2012 г. в соответствии с новым названием 83.149.37.51 05:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See also: COM:BI#File:Affiche rouge.jpg. Unclear status about licence. Will be PD in 2015-01-01, but now? Enought to says "Nazi administration in France will not claim anything"? --MGuf (d) 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Displayed on many different Wikipedia, but not on wp:en, where the file is with fair-use, as a no free content (see en:Affiche Rouge, Affiche Rouge ----MGuf (d) 06:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)- Comment It's not possible to have "author: none"; perhaps collective, or unknowed... ----MGuf (d) 06:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is the most stupid DR we have since a long time. And we have a lot of silly DRs... :( There is a situation where the author disappeared in the history, and I doubt he could even claim legally a copyright. It is a bit like the illegal graffiti. Any copyright holder would get sue for "war crime". Let's get sensible and forget this... Yann (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Les commanditaires qui sont à l’origine de cette de cette affiche, condamnés pour crimes contre l’Humanité ont-ils des droits ?--Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why this file have a GFDL or cc-by-sa licence? Which license sould be ok? Not PD! So what is the reason we can keep this file on Commons? ----MGuf (d) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted in both France and USA. There is no evidence that the photographer committed any crime. He might have been subject to forced labour or something. Besides, even if the photographer did commit any crime, I assume that the photographer's heirs could sue someone for copyright infringement. The photos of the liberators might even have been taken in a situation not related to war. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep La France était à l'époque sous les lois du Gouvernement de Vichy. L'Ordonnance du 9 août 1944 déclare que "Sont, en conséquence, nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du Gouvernement provisoire de la république française.". L'affiche en question est bien relative à la règlementation imposée par les Nazis et Vichy. Sa publication à l'époque est donc nulle de nul effet et de par cette ordonnance et ne peut faire l'objet de droits. Reste à identifier comment rédiger ceci dans le champ "licence". J'ai changé aujourd'hui la licence en conséquence. --olevy (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I interpret that as referring only to laws and similar decisions by the Vichy regime. Copyright law existed before WWII. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tant que ton argument ne figure que ici, je laisse, il contribue au débat ; mais si tu changes la source, avec un prétendu argument juridique inédit (mais en laissant le CC-By-SA) je l'enlève --> attend que soit trouvé sous quelle statut de licence se trouve ce document, si toutefois il est conservé. (d'ailleurs, à "source", il faut mettre d'où vient le document, pas sa licence)----MGuf (d) 14:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- L'usage de {{PD-because}} est probablement une bonne idée, si on trouve une bonne raison à mettre dedans, mais surement pas de dire que les lois de Vichy ne s'appliquent plus ([3]). Les lois sur les droit d'auteurs ne datent pas de Vichy, et cette affiche n'est pas l'expression d'une loi, mais une propagande. ----MGuf (d) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As written in fr:Affiche rouge#Production_et_diffusion, historian Michel Wlassikoff believes that the publisher is « Centre d'études antibolcheviques », a Vichy administration. Some of the photographs, for example Wajsbrot (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1983-009-08A, Französischer Widerstandskämpfer.jpg) and Witchitz (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1983-077-08A, Französischer Widerstandskämpfer.jpg) were released as Creative Commons licensed pictures by the Bundesarchiv. I guess however that the photographer was French, and that the German nazis never owned copyright in the first place, so that the Bundesarchiv license is bogus. Whether the photographer was a private photographer commissioned by the French government or commissioned by the German government or a French government employee is not an important question as government works are copyrighted in France. Teofilo (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Building on Teofilo's post, the poster author is precisely one of the organisation declared "cancelled" by the ordinance. So Olevy is right, that the legal basis for declaring that the copyright either does not exist, or can't be claimed (that's a legalese detail which does not have any change on the result, but if someone would like to look that further, you are welcome). Yann (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if an organisation is declared "cancelled", wouldn't all property held by that organisation be "inherited" by someone? I doubt that buildings owned by the organisation were destroyed (someone else took over the buildings), and I'm wondering if copyright wouldn't also be transferred to someone else. Besides, the Bundesarchiv links suggest that some or all of the photos were taken from other sources, unaffected by the quoted law. If Bundesarchiv's copyright claim is correct, then the photos of those two men can be used provided that Bundesarchiv is credited, but there is no information about the other photos.
- Is the copyright to a work made for a French organisation held by the author or by the organisation? The quoted law probably doesn't affect the copyright status of works copyrighted by individuals. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever is the author, he cannot claim a copyright because the poster is illegal, as it is part of a war crime, like I said above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The individual photos are obviously from different sources and are not necessarily war crimes. Also, the law only applies to France. It might be possible to claim copyright in the United States, and Commons files also have to be free in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Each photo would be de minimis. If we accept that there is no copyright for this in France, then this is the case since 1944. There was no copyright mention on it, so it did not follow US rules. Such a work is considered a collective work, so usual duration is 70 years after publication. Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- De minimis: Normally, something would count as de minimis if the inclusion of the copyrighted work is unimportant to the whole work and couldn't be avoided. For example, File:GD-FR-Paris-Champ de Mars.jpg was taken to show a regular city view. The inclusion of Tour Montparnasse couldn't be avoided (you can't take a photo of that part of Paris without first demolishing the tower) and the tower isn't included for the purpose of showing the tower. However, on this poster, the photos are included for the purpose of showing what the photos look like, so they can't be de minimis. Otherwise, you could say that a general discussion page such as COM:VP can't be copyrighted because the work of each individual contributor only is de minimis to the whole page. Compare with this image which was ruled as a copyright infringement by a Swedish court because this image and this image were included without permission. The purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website used images, so the image can't be de minimis. French law might be different from Swedish law, but note the text at COM:FOP#France: "Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.)"
- URAA: I think the important thing here is to determine if the work has no copyright or if no copyright can be claimed. If it has copyright, but copyright can't be claimed, I'm wondering if it wouldn't still be subject to URAA restoration. However, I realise that France had a different copyright term on the URAA date since the EU copyright length directive wasn't applied until a few months later. What was the copyright term for anonymous works in France on the URAA date? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Each photo would be de minimis. If we accept that there is no copyright for this in France, then this is the case since 1944. There was no copyright mention on it, so it did not follow US rules. Such a work is considered a collective work, so usual duration is 70 years after publication. Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The individual photos are obviously from different sources and are not necessarily war crimes. Also, the law only applies to France. It might be possible to claim copyright in the United States, and Commons files also have to be free in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever is the author, he cannot claim a copyright because the poster is illegal, as it is part of a war crime, like I said above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Building on Teofilo's post, the poster author is precisely one of the organisation declared "cancelled" by the ordinance. So Olevy is right, that the legal basis for declaring that the copyright either does not exist, or can't be claimed (that's a legalese detail which does not have any change on the result, but if someone would like to look that further, you are welcome). Yann (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Les personnes qui ont dessiné cette affiche travaillaient pour le 3e Reich allemand qui est la personne morale (oxymore) qui possédait les droits d'auteur, comme dans n'importe quelle entreprise, c'est l'entreprise et non les employés qui possède les droits sur ce qui est publié au nom de l'entreprise. Soit on considère que le 3e Reich a disparu et personne ne viendra réclamer de droits d'auteurs, soit on considère que la RFA en est l'héritière légale et il est inconcevable qu'elle s'oppose à cette publication. --olevy (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The author(s) cannot practically (and may also not legally) claim a copyright. Same case as illegal graffiti. Yann (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yann's closure after extensive involvement in the original deletion request was improper. The license tag stating "This file is in the public domain, because the author(s) cannot practically (and may also not legally) claim a copyright" is absurd. This idea is based in speculation, as there is no reason to believe the photographer is guilty of any war crimes, nor do I believe the law would deny their heirs the benefit of copyright even if they were. I have no idea what the term for anonymous works was in France or Germany on the URAA date, but if it was anything over 51 years (which especially with wartime extensions in France is very likely) then the images were not in the public domain there on the URAA date. To make matters worse, this is a montage and these photos may have been taken by a variety of authors, or been previously published in another nation (and contrary to Yann's statement, the small photos are not at all de minimis in this work - they are primary elements of the composition). We'd need a lot more evidence to keep this work. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The anonymous term in Germany was the same as it is now, meaning 70 years pd for text and photos, and 70 years pma for artistic works. en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights has a link to the former French law, but unfortunately the link is broken. Note that there was also a discussion about this image at COM:BI while the previous nomination was running, with some comments posted after the closure. See also File:Affiche rouge 182x152.jpg which is a different version of the same poster. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Les personnes qui ont dessiné cette affiche travaillaient pour le 3e Reich allemand qui est la personne morale (oxymore) qui possédait les droits d'auteur. Comme dans n'importe quelle entreprise, c'est l'entreprise et non les employés qui possède les droits sur ce qui est publié au nom de l'entreprise. Soit on considère que le 3e Reich a disparu et personne ne viendra réclamer de droits d'auteurs, soit on considère que la RFA en est l'héritière légale et il est inconcevable qu'elle s'oppose à cette publication. --olevy (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay if anonymous works were at least 70 pd in Germany on the URAA date, then any work dating to 1944 was certainly in copyright in 1996, and so remains copyrighted in the US until at least 2040. The photos re-used in the work may be slightly older and have unknown nations of first publication, but are still very likely published in or after 1926. Olevy is suggesting it might be a government work, and I'm not sure what happens in that case - I would guess that Germany would still hold the rights. I don't find it inconceivable that they would act to enforce them. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is inconceivable because the Federal Republic of Germany made public thousands of documents illustrating the behavior of the Nazis during WWII, taken from Nazis archives. --olevy (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- To make a work public is not the same as to release it into the public domain. Even if Germany did release some Nazi documents into the public domain, I would like to see some evidence that this document was either among them or satisfied the same general criteria as other released works. Otherwise, this is just speculation. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is not legally possible to release works to the public domain in the European Union. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- To make a work public is not the same as to release it into the public domain. Even if Germany did release some Nazi documents into the public domain, I would like to see some evidence that this document was either among them or satisfied the same general criteria as other released works. Otherwise, this is just speculation. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is inconceivable because the Federal Republic of Germany made public thousands of documents illustrating the behavior of the Nazis during WWII, taken from Nazis archives. --olevy (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep My closure was not improper. Commons policy says that there needs to be a copyright holder who might be able to claim pratically and legally for a copyright to exist. I cannot imagine the author of this file claiming a copyright, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The illegal graffiti policy is quite contentious as it is, and your unilateral extension of it is even more shaky. There is no reason under the law to suppose that a person who is a criminal cannot claim copyright to a work; many murderers create and publish artworks from their jail cells and enjoy the royalties thereof. Moreover, as others explained repeatedly above, there is no reason to suppose the person who took these photos was not an innocent or uninvolved person, who might even have been compelled to do so. As for your closure, it was improper as I said because of your extensive involvement in the DR, not just because of the closing statement. DRs must generally be closed by neutral third parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you are wrong on all counts. There are many examples where criminals are denied the claim of copyright, but the author of this poster was not an ordinary criminal. He would be punishable for war crime. It is quite extraordinary to suppose that the author is innocent. Then I did not create nor upload this image, so I don't see why I could not express my opinion and close the request. There is no rule saying that admins can't do so. Yann (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to get at but there's a lot of missing information here. The description claims the Vichy regime created the poster, and their leaders might have been convicted of war crimes, but the organization was never convicted as a whole (an organization cannot be guilty of war crimes, only particular members); it's not clear who holds the copyright today, or who created the photos that make it up. Those could very well have been taken from Resistance's own files. If either France or Germany is effectively the successor state to this administration, then the state holds the copyright. There is not enough evidence here to show that the copyright holder of the work in all its parts is a person who is guilty of war crimes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- We already have some of the photos used in the poster (Missak Manouchian, Marcel Rayman. If the copyright holder is not a person, the case is even easier. The French Wikipedia mentions that the creator is the Centre d'études antibolcheviques (Center for anti-bolshevik studies), an organisation which was dissolved in 1944, a few months after the poster was created. I don't see how this organisation could claim a copyright today, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The IP of organisations doesn't magically enter the public domain when they shut down. Usually there's a liquidation phase in which their rights are sold to third parties in order to pay debts, reparations, etc. If the organisation is dissolved that only makes it all the more difficult to identify the present-day copyright holder. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- We already have some of the photos used in the poster (Missak Manouchian, Marcel Rayman. If the copyright holder is not a person, the case is even easier. The French Wikipedia mentions that the creator is the Centre d'études antibolcheviques (Center for anti-bolshevik studies), an organisation which was dissolved in 1944, a few months after the poster was created. I don't see how this organisation could claim a copyright today, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to get at but there's a lot of missing information here. The description claims the Vichy regime created the poster, and their leaders might have been convicted of war crimes, but the organization was never convicted as a whole (an organization cannot be guilty of war crimes, only particular members); it's not clear who holds the copyright today, or who created the photos that make it up. Those could very well have been taken from Resistance's own files. If either France or Germany is effectively the successor state to this administration, then the state holds the copyright. There is not enough evidence here to show that the copyright holder of the work in all its parts is a person who is guilty of war crimes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you are wrong on all counts. There are many examples where criminals are denied the claim of copyright, but the author of this poster was not an ordinary criminal. He would be punishable for war crime. It is quite extraordinary to suppose that the author is innocent. Then I did not create nor upload this image, so I don't see why I could not express my opinion and close the request. There is no rule saying that admins can't do so. Yann (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The illegal graffiti policy is quite contentious as it is, and your unilateral extension of it is even more shaky. There is no reason under the law to suppose that a person who is a criminal cannot claim copyright to a work; many murderers create and publish artworks from their jail cells and enjoy the royalties thereof. Moreover, as others explained repeatedly above, there is no reason to suppose the person who took these photos was not an innocent or uninvolved person, who might even have been compelled to do so. As for your closure, it was improper as I said because of your extensive involvement in the DR, not just because of the closing statement. DRs must generally be closed by neutral third parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with Doc 100%. This work is copyrighted, and "the owners will not bother to sue" directly runs afoul of COM:PRP and the spirit of Commons. And saying "well we have have Graffiti" is a perfect example of the what about X fallacy used in deletion discussions. This item is non-free in both its source country and the US. That should be the end of the discussion. Period. The only way this item can stay is if Yann provides proof that the work is now in the PD, per COM:EVID. So far, he has provided only speculation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems you didn't even read what I wrote above. Otherwise, you message is not worth answering. I mean that your post looks like a propaganda speach, not a help finding a solution to a problem. Yann (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I read everything you wrote, and I refuted it point by point. My argument was not meant to be an ad hominem; why is yours? If you think my logic is wrong, please point out the flaw in it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems you didn't even read what I wrote above. Otherwise, you message is not worth answering. I mean that your post looks like a propaganda speach, not a help finding a solution to a problem. Yann (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment added copy of this file; it should really be deleted either way, and replaced by this file if this file is kept.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This will apply.
{{PD-GermanGov}} --olevy (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to text and not to images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no similarity between a stamp and a poster informing the population of a judgment taken by the German state. --olevy (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both are artistic works and the court ruling stated that {{PD-GermanGov}} doesn't apply to artistic works. Also, there is no evidence that the German government took any of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps cannot be reproduced "because they are not published for general knowledge, but for general use released in monetary transactions". This poster, by definition, was published for general knowledgein 1944 and its republication by Wikipedia is also for general knowledge, therefore the German Federal Government does not oppose this publication. --olevy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps can't be reproduced because "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)". These photos have, I believe, been "works of the visual arts" since Germany implemented the w:Copyright Duration Directive in the 1990s. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is important is the literary work in this poster, basically : "Those so-called liberators have killed, each, scores of people. They constitute a criminal army." The pictures by themselves mean nothing to the readers but with the red color, they only emphasize the criminal side. This is what the Germans wanted to communicate to the French people. --olevy (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- A derivative work remains derivative regardless of the degree to which the perceived overall message of the work involves the creative decisions of the original works. Even if I were to buy this argument, it's clear that the poster's creators selected photos that they believed would portray these figures as menacing or dangerous, rather than jovial or heroic, suggesting that the creative choices of the photographs are relevant to the message. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is important is the literary work in this poster, basically : "Those so-called liberators have killed, each, scores of people. They constitute a criminal army." The pictures by themselves mean nothing to the readers but with the red color, they only emphasize the criminal side. This is what the Germans wanted to communicate to the French people. --olevy (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps can't be reproduced because "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)". These photos have, I believe, been "works of the visual arts" since Germany implemented the w:Copyright Duration Directive in the 1990s. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps cannot be reproduced "because they are not published for general knowledge, but for general use released in monetary transactions". This poster, by definition, was published for general knowledgein 1944 and its republication by Wikipedia is also for general knowledge, therefore the German Federal Government does not oppose this publication. --olevy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both are artistic works and the court ruling stated that {{PD-GermanGov}} doesn't apply to artistic works. Also, there is no evidence that the German government took any of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no similarity between a stamp and a poster informing the population of a judgment taken by the German state. --olevy (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to text and not to images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Olevy and Yann. — Racconish Tk 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. J’ai déjà argumenté lors de la première procédure et je garde le même avis. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Ceci est une affiche désormais en libres droits. --193.252.178.204 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per Dcoetzee. It's all in writing at COM:PRP -FASTILY (TALK) 01:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Biker Biker as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a drawing of a motorcycle helmet design which infringes the copyright of the original designer. INeverCry 06:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Biker Biker as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a drawing of a motorcycle helmet design which infringes the copyright of the original designer. INeverCry 06:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation; cited source seems to have a non-compatible copyright policy. Note that it is used on 3 Wikipedias. - dcljr (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Aerial photograph doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong text. Correct text is FvW (uploaded already) Flor!an (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I would be surprised if a map which highlights the Soviet Union without its 6 western republics and Kaliningrad exclave, named "Central Asia" and having a Spanish inscription "Mapa de Asia del Oeste" in the descriprion page, had any positive educational value. In any case, it is trivially derived from File:1-12 Grey Map World.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It´s because i did a mistake. If you find a mistake just delete. Is not necesary the irony.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a high school and the uploader is not the original creator of that file. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Violation de droits d’auteur : plafond peint en 1964 par Marc Chagall, mort en 1985. VIGNERON (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Linked to Wrong Monument PaliGol (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of File:Bozen 1 (177).JPG which was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bozen 1 (177).JPG: there is no freedom of panorama in Italy; and this is an artistic work above the threshold of originality. Note this case differs from File:Clothes of Ötzi, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.jpg, taken in Autstria which does have freedom of panorama, even inside publically accessible buildings. 84user (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
File:President Kim Yong Nam, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, Mansudae Supreme People's Assembly Hall.jpg
[edit]It would be helpful if someone more fluent in Korean could check, but I don't think the permission page linked to by this image indicates that works of the KCNA are released into the public domain (or indeed any Commons-compatible licence) as claimed by the uploader. Psychonaut (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a resized version from official website [4]. Funfood ␌ 10:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
what is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The (blocked) uploader request the removal of this image in ticket:2012072510005707, asking us to
- "please delete all content from the account "Heldunterwegs". As the owner of this account I am such impatient with the way of working at wikipedia, that I decide to end my account as fast as possible. I that way I also want to delete every content I placed on Wikicommon!".
As there is apparently no copyright-related complaint, I'm asking you to review this uploader's request. Thanks in advance, —Pill (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nambapana_Flood.JPG Eranga2niluka (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The (blocked) uploader request the removal of this image in ticket:2012072510005707, asking us to
- "please delete all content from the account "Heldunterwegs". As the owner of this account I am such impatient with the way of working at wikipedia, that I decide to end my account as fast as possible. I that way I also want to delete every content I placed on Wikicommon!".
As there is apparently no copyright-related complaint, I'm asking you to review this uploader's request. Thanks in advance, —Pill (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted Sreejith K (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Firespeaker as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted posters Yann (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- These posters are very simple. Might be OK. Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Web resolution, no EXIF. Doubtful authorship. Sreejith K (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This page appears to have a slightly earlier copy. It says "1 bild, 08 mar 2008" under the picture to the right. Click on it and then again in the "My photos" section. This is definitely one of the photos in the collage. Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unknown logo. It either needs OTRS or is out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a logo. Stefan4 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sceptical that this is the uploaded own work. Also, there is insufficient information given about the image making it of little use. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
User has uploaded many copyvios before. No EXIF. Most likely derivative work. 1989 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- This account only have 3 uploads, no deleted images. The ones deleted here before are the same? --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Just realized an error on my part. Mistook the uploader as someone else. --1989 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Small copy of file:Iwan Groźny i jego niania (1886).jpg Shakko (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, original author unknown. Funfood ␌ 13:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, original author unknown. Funfood ␌ 13:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Source website notes at the bottom: "None of the contents from this website are to be used on any website that charges a fee for any reason." So not suitable for commons. Funfood ␌ 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
BadJPG, replaced by File:Schlotterer-Logo.png. Leyo 14:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Image is claimed to be the uploaders own work, but phones have not been released to the public yet. This is most likely a photoshopped crop of a publicity photograph and therefore a copyright infringement Biker Biker (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Could be "hand made" like every other iPad/iPhone imported by Zach Vega. But the lack of exif is kinda mysterious. Kyro (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep after some research there is no way that image could come from Apple the highest image is 2400*2400 (see here) far below this 4k high image. Kyro (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This happens everytime I upload an image like this. Someone marks it as a copyvio. Do you need the PSD? Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reflection on the screen (diagonal line running from top center to the right side) is exactly the same as on Apple's web page. Would you mind explaining exactly how you made this file? Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reflection? That's just a customized gradient overlay. The settings can be found here. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! Ok, I'm now very impressed. Speedy Keep! Adjwilley (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Of course, it's made by Zach Vega. 1. There's no apple image that is 4500x8500. 2. If you look very close in the speaker you will see that the speaker doesn't have so high resolusion (a lit blury). For Apple that would be a no-go. Impressive work, Zach Vega!--Lolametro (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per conversation above; It is clear that this is not a copyright infringement and it was made by a user specializing in this kind of work. Haseo9999 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 103.10.64.17 10:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per conversation above; It is clear that this is not a copyright infringement and it was made by a user specializing in this kind of work. Haseo9999 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reflection? That's just a customized gradient overlay. The settings can be found here. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Tuankiet65 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I get the same grief every time I upload my pictures of the A4/A5/A5X/A6 processors. -- Henriok (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reflection on the screen (diagonal line running from top center to the right side) is exactly the same as on Apple's web page. Would you mind explaining exactly how you made this file? Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Are we done? The clear consensus is to Keep. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused email, out of scope for Commons. Also displays a long list of emails, some of them are probably not meant to be shown publicly. Badzil (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Author of painting (the painter) is not named. PD-old-70 is hence just a guess and very probably wrong. FA2010 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Omyłkowo przesłany przez Kurpicz Kurpicz 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; published in 1923 and free in Germany in 2015 and in the US in 2019 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; free in Germany in 2015 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; free in Germany in 2015 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; free in Germany in 2015 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; free in Germany in 2015 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unrealistic depiction of lead titanate. Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Book cover illustration of a - probably - non-notable book. Doubtful that the uploader can convey rights regarding the background picture. (Only other upload was the portrait of one of the book authors, which was deleted as "out of scope".) Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused, out of project scope. Leyo 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, possible internet source:http://www.google.cl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.radioclublaportada.superweb.cl/filesweb/39040/laportada_closeup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.radioclublaportada.superweb.cl/&h=768&w=1024&sz=114&tbnid=7OS_2as4kgRrAM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=126&zoom=1&usg=__7jSzWQc3no-K-S-HswiqcYpHxSA=&docid=0enfqgZQrUukWM&sa=X&ei=SSFSUOT8E4Xq8gTQvYCYDw&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAw&dur=1015 3BRBS (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyright infraction, should be speedy deleted. --B1mbo (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
no image (see source code) Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah there is. It's a blown-up version of the broken image icon in Windows (still non-free!). 68.173.113.106 23:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per my previous statement. 68.173.113.106 23:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Sailors on JS Bungo load dummy mines into the hold during RIMPAC 2012, -10 Jul. 2012 b.jpg
[edit]Originally tagged {{Unfree}} by the administrator User:Wdwd, it seems that the license has not been thoroughly reviewed. So I have converted this into an ordinally deletion process. --トトト (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The image has been released under the license {{cc-by-3.0-nz}}by the New Zealand Defence Force, and its copyright notice is embedded in the Exif of the file. I mentioned this earlier at its discussion page in order to notify reviewers but User:Wdwd was not careful enough. This image of the same kind has been reviewed by a different admin and confirmed to be acceptable to commons. --トトト (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
_1859.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_abril_2011.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/Innocence_of_Muslims.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_1859.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1859.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1859.jpg){kind=link}
_1859.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAffiche_rouge.jpg&diff=78060572&oldid=78058998){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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_abril_2011.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_abril_2011.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_abril_2011.JPG){kind=link}
_abril_2011.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- トトト, can you provide a web link that show that this image truly free? (e.g. from http://www.navy.mil/ or similar) As far as i know the only source is flickr with a CC-NC licencse tag (the flickr license maybe wrong).--Wdwd (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) PS: i'm not an admin.
- Please download the largest original file available at Flickr, and the check
{{cc-by-3.0-nz}}is embedded in its Exif. Whether it is available at http://www.navy.mil/ or Flickr is irrelevant as long as the file itself has been given the copyright status of{{cc-by-3.0-nz}}by its sole copyright holder, the New Zealand Defence Force. In principle, the photographer/creator has the right to decide its copyright status and the U.S. Pacific Fleet is a mere third party in this case. --トトト (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please download the largest original file available at Flickr, and the check
- トトト, can you provide a web link that show that this image truly free? (e.g. from http://www.navy.mil/ or similar) As far as i know the only source is flickr with a CC-NC licencse tag (the flickr license maybe wrong).--Wdwd (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) PS: i'm not an admin.
- Keep Seems to be quite reasonable to think that {{Cc-by-3.0-nz}} applies here. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, possible internet source:http://www.google.cl/imgres?um=1&hl=es&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:es-CL:official&biw=1366&bih=637&tbm=isch&tbnid=1r1DbeLgqPXexM:&imgrefurl=http://veritascapitur.cl/2012/06/21/los-moais-de-isla-de-pascua-caminaron-afirma-la-national-geographic/&docid=goN34r_DFIlfKM&imgurl=http://veritascapitur.cl/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/moais.jpg&w=400&h=402&ei=xCNSUMuSKIbo8gS86ICwBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=114&vpy=299&dur=361&hovh=225&hovw=224&tx=136&ty=118&sig=116562650325647958229&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=132&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:147 ---3BRBS (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to uploader's claim this is unlikely "own work". The left watermark mentions imoti.net, a website that says "© 2000-2011 Imoti.net All rights reserved". In addition, such detailed maps, if not from OSM, are rarely under a free license. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Used in a stub on users sandbox at itwp that is not edited for over a year. I don't think if the article will ever make it to wikipedia. Funfood ␌ 19:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused, single upload from user. Funfood ␌ 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The description says: "Permission: NO". It is doubtful that this file is free of use. Badzil (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Should be coded as a wikitable instead. Stefan4 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a photo of a man. Stefan4 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also: It says "not for duplication" and that it is an image of the user. Unused so out of scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr as source, but it's a DW of a drawing with unknown author. Funfood ␌ 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Too small for a photograph. It looks like a promotional image more than a cultural resource. Ralgistalk 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Can't be own work if uploader claims to be the person on the photograph. Funfood ␌ 23:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (low resolution, badJPG), not used anywhere. Leyo 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This image is good but oceans are plain instead of colorful one:File:QuaternaryGlobal.jpg. Kabyst (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why is this observation grounds for deletion? If you think a different image is suitable for some particular use, then replace it in that context. That has nothing to do with deletion requests. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia processes and immediately remove your deletion request.Strebe (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - user is a sockpuppet of a globally locked user, and the rationale for deletion makes no sense, is unconvincing, and has no ground in policy. Σ (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
redundant to Category:Manuel Felguérez W like wiki (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Redundant: lower-quality version of File:NTIFO_組織架構.jpg with less readable letters. whym (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete both as they are both illegible. 68.173.113.106 23:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Takabeg as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of deleted image INeverCry 06:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Check this out: http://hovik95.livejournal.com/106395.html . The source clearly says: This image is being published by me: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode --Yerevanci (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If the uploader says it's his/her copyright, then check the ToS and keep. 68.173.113.106 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: free apparently FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment is that dog a copyvio? 68.173.113.106 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately has to be deleted, sculptor Sergey Merkurov died in 1952. К сожалению, фотографию следует удалить, так как скульптор Сергей Меркуров умер в 1952 году, и скульптура перейдёт в общественное достояние лишь в 2023 году. Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:SG109101.JPG
- File:SG109102.JPG
- File:SG109106.JPG
- File:SG109107.JPG
- File:SG109108.JPG--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fresh Hare deleted a pixellated version of this file (File:JAL Dream Express-vertical stabilizer jpg pixelated.png) with the comment "contains copyrighted logotypes (yes, the JAL and UNICEF ones !)". If the pixellated vesrion is considered under copyright then so must this version, although I would argue that a version sufficiently blurred should be acceptable. 84user (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: I *believe* I created File:JAL Dream Express-vertical stabilizer jpg pixelated.png (poor memory) intending to save part of the image by blurring out the copyrighted Mickey Mouse image, so its deletion may have been a mistake. The above linked DR mentions the JAL and UNICEF logos as being copyrightable, but I feel they *could* be acceptable because of highish threshold of originality in civil law countries and/or de minimis, and even if not would only require minimal blurring to make them exempt. See the copyright exemption claims on File:Japan Airlines Logo (1989 - 2002).svg and File:Unicef logo.svg. However, I just noticed the Disney castle appears at the right edge and that may also require blurring. -84user (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this really own work? The colour cast on the chin shows it is a copy of http://www.dwshare.com/actorpictures/3610998/photo-1011.jpg. Why the manipulation? Why did it take almost a year before uploading? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming the orange shirt pictures were made in one session, this photo was probably made by Michael D'Ambrosia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely not PD in the US, and if we can't trace it back to a book before 1993, calling it EU-anonymous is impossible. Prosfilaes (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with rationale. Also, might be PD in the US under limited circumstances, but unlikely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - also, possibly File:Zaolzie mapa en desc.jpg; unclear if this falls under or over the Polish threshold, but it is probably out of scope if the original image is deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily sure it isn't PD in the US -- if it really is from Poland in 1938, and is anonymous. Poland had 50-year terms on the URAA date. But if the only source is a 1993 book, and no further source is noted in that book, I don't see any reason why we can assume it was made earlier than 1993. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
who is this man? Agent001 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Alexander Douglas Nicholls (born 9 December 1987) is an English footballer who can play as both a midfielder and a striker who plays for Northampton Town. --Tamba52 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- is this a wind up? Jonesy702 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Owner of the car does not want to have an image on wiki any longer. Xjohny (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blur the number, and then keep. Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: user requested - courtesy blank FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
who is this wooman? Agent001 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Doreen Barbara Massey es una científica social inglesa contemporánea. Ha colaborado con algunos de los más importantes autores del ámbito de la geografía marxista. Actualmente es profesora de Geografía Humana en la Open University. --Tamba52 (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
who is this wooman? Agent001 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dulcemar Vieira (Curitiba, 28 de Agosto de 1935) é uma atriz, dubladora e apresentadora de televisão e rádio brasileira.Tamba52 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cplakidas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is clearly based on the wooden model in the Naval Museum at Piraeus, which is definitely a post-1950 work and hence copyrighted by its original creator. Yann (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- See talk page. Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK for the deletion since Constantine (Konstantinos Plakidas) explain to me than the greek laws forbide the public use of images created since pictures made in the museums, and than the model boat itself is wrong as a reconstitution. The uploader --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Authord died 1989 [[5]], wrong licence, no permission from the heirs, also needed for the .jpg - version. AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Harmon Foundation collection was compiled 1922-1967. Since this is an etching, it can be presumed to have been published before the end of that period. Thus it appears to be PD-US-no notice. Two issues still need clarification: was there a notice on the back and was it first published in Nigeria, US, or elsewhere? Although NARA denies knowledge of copyright status for the Harmon collection as a whole, this piece is marked unrestricted on its individual record. I would take that as presumptive evidence that there is no copyright notice. Dankarl (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
small copy of File:LebedevKV CarIvan4GrozPrMI.jpg Shakko (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tagged by {{Duplicate}} template and processed --Butko (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlaueReiter.jpg; free in Germany in 2015 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- One could crop the image. That would enable us to keep it until that date. Besides that: wouldn't such a small reprint in a low quality like that count as de minimis? --32X (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not really; that's not what de minimis means. Commons:De minimis. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Retten ließen sich die Briefmarkenfotos sich auf zwei Wegen: Einholung einer Veröffentlichungsgenehmigung (geht aber nur kostenfrei) oder weitgehende Unkenntlichmachung per Verwischen (Abb.)? Schön isses ned... Kann man so an die Sache herangehen, dass das Motiv (für Kenner) erahnbar ist? (dann wäre das Bild hier nur eine Vorstufe) --Mattes (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was mistakenly transferred to Commons from the English WP where it was licensed with PD-1923-abroad. The copyright is most likely not yet expired in the country of origin, Germany, being held by S. Fischer Verlag, the publisher. Unlike on Commons, files on the English Wikipedia don't have to be out of copyright in their country of origin if it was published before 1923, so I've re-uploaded it there.. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The text is obviously {{PD-simple}}, but there is some art under the text. The art could maybe pass COM:TOO#Germany, but this might be more complex. I might be wrong, but I seem to understand that Germany has a higher threshold of originality for logos than for other artworks. Also don't forget about the warning at {{Anonymous-EU}}: German artworks published before 1 July 1995 are by definition never anonymous (except in certain rare cases where they were first published posthumously). There is no evidence that the artist died at least 70 years ago, and the copyright term is life+70 years even if there is no way to identify the artist, due to the strange German law. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately has to be deleted since the memorial cemetery was open in 1960, and there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. К сожалению, фотографии следует удалить, так как мемориальное кладбище было открыто в 1960 году, а в России нет свободы панорамы. Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:St. Petersburg. Russia. Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery. A view of the pergola by the pond..JPG
- File:St. Petersburg. Russia. Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery. Avenue of Remembrance. One of the many steles memory..JPG
- File:St. Petersburg. Russia. Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery. Monument to those killed in the siege of Leningrad by students of vocational schools in Belarus..JPG
- File:St. Petersburg. Russia. Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery. Pergola..JPG--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Санкт-Петербург. Пискаревское мемориальное кладбище. Монумент "Родина-Мать".JPG
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
own source? Slow resolution, black and white Ezarateesteban 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am the owner of this photograph: http://www.michelgagne.com/More.html Sorry for any inconvenience caused. I am Michel Gagné, and I am the person in the photo.
- You don't take the photo, you aren't the owner of the copyright Ezarateesteban 23:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
contain watermak of Marc Israel Sellem - photographer of The Jerusalem Post -- Geagea (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The metadata for this file seems to contradict the copyright assertion, in that it seems that the copyright may be as recent as 2011. Also, the source given is invalid; the image is not available at the given url. This appears to be a copyright violation, but I am not certain enough to nominate it for a speedy deletion on those grounds. D'Ranged 1 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Arden did radio for many years, but before 1960. This looks to be a copy of an original NBC publicity photo. Since I've worked with a lot of radio and television publicity photos, can say that the original probably had no copyright marks, but we lack the proof (seeing the original image uncut front and back) to be able to conclusively say there were none. We hope (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
svg format instead of jpg Copyleft (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete per copyvio, uploader request. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Website notice says all photos are copyright to photographer. Copyright HurrelPhotos.com-all rights reserved"; this is on all site pages-including the one this photo came from. We hope (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. Unless its author has been dead for the required period, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See Commons:Hirtle chart for further explanation.--Celest (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No evidence it was a publicity still nor that uploader searched for copyright renewal - file will be deleted without additional info. --Denniss (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a poster and the site gives no dating or copyright information. Not an original. We don't know the copyright status of the original. We hope (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. Unless its author has been dead for the required period, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See Commons:Hirtle chart for further explanation.--Celest (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's no confirmation this was a publicity still neither is there any indication the uploader has done some research regarding renewal. Without additional information this file will be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Biker Biker as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a drawing of a motorcycle helmet design which infringes the copyright of the original designer. INeverCry 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see the designs on the helmet are only simple geometric shapes... there are no brands or logos which could infringe any copyright. Fma12 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - design beyond threshold of originality Lymantria (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Original photo is sourced to http://cpt.org/gallery/album109/05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs. The photo no longer exists at that location. Under CCPL licensing, the Licensor may revoke any further use of the image. Given that the original image is removed, the assumption should be made that the Licensor no longer grants rights under CCPL. Additionally, the photo description is unsourced and not verfiable. Tgeairn (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The image is licensed according to CC-BY-SA-3.0 and as far as I know it is not a requirement that the image should remain at it's original location for the license to be valid. // Liftarn (talk)
- Out of Scope. The photo demonstrates that, somewhere, sometime, a child stood in front of graffiti. Or possibly installation art. But AFAICT, the image can't be included in any encyclopaedic article without raising intractable issues about reliability, verifiability, and NPOV, and so doesn't serve a purpose on commons. Also:
- Consent Required. Commons policy requires compliance with local law regarding photographic consent. Israel requires consent to publish identifiable pictures of people in public places. There's no documented consent from this child. 24.177.125.104
The image was moved to http://cpt.org/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=2454. The previous location was also captured by archive.org here. I have updated the details. So the "photo no longer exists at that location" is dealt with. Regarding "the photo description is unsourced and not verfiable", CPT's photo's of graffiti are discussed by Antony Loewenstein in My Israel Question and Maeve Connolly's The Place of Artists' Cinema: Space, Site, and Screen includes a picture of this graffiti. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Agreed. Given that the image is still available under CCPL, the licensing question is moot. The issue of the associated data (primarily the description) is still open. The image description is not verified in a reliable source, and is making a statement of fact that comprises the bulk of the communication. I will review the sources you have provided; but perhaps you can tell us if those sources reliably confirm the image description? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Neither source can reliably confirm the image description; the first is about the existence of grafitti in general, and the second is about an entirely different photograph. 24.177.125.104 08:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- eh ? The second is the same grafitti. Tgeairn, I can post the pages to google docs if you can't see them. Obviously it's not possible to know what the facts are in this case. It could have been done by the small chap standing around.
- The first source says "The Christian Peacemaker Teams released a series of photographs taken in Hebron in recent years that showed the attitudes of many settlers to the Palestinians. Some of the graffiti in English included: 'Die Arab Sand Niggers'; 'Exterminate the Muslims'; 'Watch out Fatima, we will rape all Arab Women'; 'Kill All Arabs' 'White Power: Kill Niggers'; 'Gas the Arabs' and 'Arabs to the Gas Chambers'"
- The second source...which includes a picture of the same grafitti...is quite arty, goes on a bit at length, and I can't be bothered to type it all in, says "slogans sprayed by Jewish settlers in Hebron". Let me know if you can't see the pages though and I'll put them on google docs. To my mind, the best that can be done WP:V compliance-wise is to say something like that the grafitti was reportedly sprayed by settlers in Hebron and cite the sources. That statement is true and verifiable. This kind of graffiti is common in Hebron anyway so it doesn't exactly raise a red flag. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No problems, I am able to view the sources. The image exists, and Sean.hoyland has updated the details to reflect the source. The source itself is unlikely to found reliable for the description/attribution of the graffiti, but that (as stated below) doesn't mean the image should be deleted. The description is still the issue though. I could take a photo of my grand-daughter in front of an anti-loyalist grafitti and say that it is "Catholic hatred"; but that doesn't make it a reliable statement... even if I post that photo under my mate's press credentials. It would certainly be a photo of a young girl under anti-loyalist grafitti, but there would be not a reliable source saying that it was placed by a Republican. CPT isn't subject to editorial review, and therefore their description of an image isn't going to be considered reliable. We are left with a choice of either removing the image entirely, or of changing the description to one that is entirely neutral. Given that this image (and related ones with the same issues) are widely discussed, I anticipate that others will have input. This has been around for two years, so there is no rush to determine an outcome. On a personal note, I do not have a horse in this race, and I commend all editors involved in this discussion for bringing civility and reason to a subject that has been very heated in the past. --Tgeairn (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- eh ? The second is the same grafitti. Tgeairn, I can post the pages to google docs if you can't see them. Obviously it's not possible to know what the facts are in this case. It could have been done by the small chap standing around.
- Neither source can reliably confirm the image description; the first is about the existence of grafitti in general, and the second is about an entirely different photograph. 24.177.125.104 08:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Licensing is not an issue and the sources given by Sean.hoyland clearly show the same graffiti on the same door. The caption can be improved through normal editing; it's not a valid reason to delete the image. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Violates commons policy requires compliance with country-specific consent requirements. According to that page, Israel requires consent to publish a picture of a person; however, there is no {{Consent}} documentation for this photo. 24.177.121.137 04:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Publishing a picture of a minor without consent. Yann (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've no idea if Israel copyright requirements apply to the territories they occupy, as the West Bank.
- Anyway, if I well understand, Israel/Palestinian matters should be irrelevant here, since the photo apparently was first published in http://cpt.org/, hosted in New York City. This is an American work, not Israeli, even if it would have been taken in Tel Aviv instead of the West Bank.
- If the above is correct, technically it should be kept.
- I'm somewhat sympathetic to Yann argument of publishing a picture of a minor without consent, though the image doesn't seem to be demeaning in any way to the child. The presence of the boy seems to be quite casual in the picture.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the law of the land where the picture was taken needs to apply; after all, we don't know whether the photo was "published to" CPT's website from the West Bank, Israel, NYC, or Australia.
- I don't know if this picture was taken in Palestinian-controlled Hebron or Israeli-controlled Hebron. I also can't find any authoritative source for the existence or non-existence of a body of Palestinian law, or any personality rights that it might protect.
- But I think prudence dictates that we err on the side of caution. After all, it's a child who possibly didn't consent to the photo, and we've got other pictures of the exact same door without him. 24.177.121.137 19:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The file is undoubtedly published in the US, the point from which you upload is immaterial. Same thing as sending a book from Cambodja to the US for publication. But thinking better about it, foreign law probably would also apply, or else we would not have an issue with FOP in France and such things. Question would be if Israel law applies at all there, I don't believe it to be an immediate conclusion that when you occupy a territory, your law is what counts. There was a recent case here dealing with the occupation of Poland by Germany, from what was written there, it would require a significant degree of recognizing by other countries of such occupation for the occupier law to be held on count.
- This is only technical stuff, however, and I believe this DR will be decided on other grounds.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The act of publishing the photo could have taken place anywhere. The image is hosted in the US, but that's an entirely different thing.
- You'll find there's disagreement about whether Hebron is occupied territory. There are no generally accepted answers to the questions you ask. That's mostly irrelevant, though: prudence and caution should dictate when we're dealing in the personality rights of a minor. 24.177.121.137 00:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- The image of the boy could be rather easily cropped away, as you can see now with the second image version, which I uploaded over the original one. However, the image would loose much by such cropping, as the rather innocently looking boy makes the hate graffite the more cruel. Actually I assume that the photographer choose this composition intentionally. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- For the cropped version, I would say Keep. Yann (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- For the cropped version, I would say
- Another option would be to pixelate the boy's face, which I have done now in the second most recent image version. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Found only now, we have another photo of the same graffiti on the same door, File:Gas the arabs painted in Hebron.JPG, which also can give a guess how much the boy contributes to the message/impression of this image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't. There's no compelling reason to keep this picture; it's replaceable. 24.177.121.137 10:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment. If Israeli privacy law is the remaining concern, the boy's face can be pixelated. [6] That's the recommended course of action in the Commons guideline. So Keep (again, duh). Tijfo098 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
![[6]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fb/20120923083223!05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs.jpg){kind=link}
- Question: why should Commons keep the picture with the pixilated boy, when another picture of the same graffiti already exists on Commons without the boy? (again... duh?) 24.177.121.137 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. OMG, are you serious?!? I just looked at the link, and that's creepy as hell. 24.177.121.137 06:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very creepy indeed! But I suppose it can be fixed, so that it doesn't look so awkward.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Creepy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there don't seem to be any valid reasons to keep, and policyvio is a valid reason for deletion. 2600:1008:B008:B716:0:39:D3D9:7401 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- May I voice my concern for using children in such way buy different political organizations. Although the content of picture is clearly shocking, the question remains why the child was put in front of such graphite. Maybe because it was estimated by the photographer that in this way the picture will cause maximum outpouring of emotions, and will generate political and other reactions. Yet this is clear example of manipulation with the children for political purposes, and in this way such a picture should be deleted-Tritomex (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument does not hold for 2 reasons: your interpretation is purely political, and not based on facts. That's a bad start. How do you know that the child didn't make the tag himself? Secondly, we don't delete images on Commons, even if they are not politically correct. That's the policy. Yann (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not deny that I have other problem with this kind of pictures beside privacy laws. Yet my argument is not solely based on political manipulations with children. To put your question in opposite direction, I would ask how do we know that the "child made a tag for himself"? If there are no evidences, I think we should presume otherwise. More, so, shouldn't children be protected from usage by political organizations for political (or propaganda) purposes? If we start with assumption that the child voluntarily contributed to this picture, we could tomorrow come to situation where we will justify, for example the use of children as human shields, with the same logic. Children do not have full responsibility, yet the adults who purposely involve them in any action, including a highly sensitive picture aimed to be put in Wikipedia, do have responsibility and must at least provide legal insurance from the parents and according to local/state lows.[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex] 23:21, 26 September 2012
- "Creepy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very creepy indeed! But I suppose it can be fixed, so that it doesn't look so awkward.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Photos from that region and conflict will often also have some political meaning and might be used for propaganda. I think that is unavoidable if you want to show meaningful images from both "sides": File:9-years old Israeli boy Osher Twito copes with lost of his leg after Qassam exploded next to him in Sderot Israel.jpg, File:05 10 05 soldiers in old city 1.jpg.
- Morally more important than a legal speculation based on unclear premises, IMO is the question whether the hosting of this image on Commons exposes the depicted boy to additional danger or results in additional (risk of) damage for him. As one can see from the image, the boy is not depicted in any demeaning manner; actually he looks rather indifferent. If there exists a potential risk for the boy, for example out of revenge by settlers or JDL for the negative PR, it was likely highest shortly after start of publication of this photo. The image was published already in 2005 and was widely re-published from that time on, as the Google- and TinEye-hitlists show[7],[8],[9] As this photo was shot more than 7 years ago, today the boy in the image will look rather different and will unlikely be recognized. Therefore, the hosting of this image on Commons, currently used only on :en Wikipedia, will unlikely have a substantial contribution to the potential risk for the depicted boy. --Túrelio (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- TBH, your opinion on WikiMedia Commons policy isn't relevant. 24.177.121.137 20:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
One way to get out from this conundrum is, possibly, to ask cpt-org.com if they can ask the photographer who took this photo if he had permission from the boy or his tutor. I must say, however, that even if I understand the concerns with the personalty rights, in practical terms this kid must be now in his mid or late teens, and hardly recognizable on the street. We're not talking about a real child that is out there and will be possibly exploited, it's about an image of someone who was a child back in 2005.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Considering Osher Twito we all know that his picture came to medias with the signed agreements by his parents in accordance with the Israeli law. He is not anonymous person and his parents, not Wikipedia bares full responsibility for any potential repercussion regarding pictures they(his parents) made public. In this case we do not know who the child is and how the picture was taken. Considering the age, if the picture was taken 7 years ago, (I don't know the date) I am sure that the child is still a minor according local laws.
Deleted I agree that it is unlikely that this image will harm the child, who is now much older, but it is still possible. I also understand that we have been told that the parents have accepted that responsibility.
Nonetheless, I am deleting this. Whatever our position on various conflicts around the world, those of us who are parents and grandparents can agree that the worst victims are the children on both sides. Count this as a vote for all the children -- a small step toward keeping them as far out of it as possible. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Violation de droits d’auteur : sculpture par Jorge Oteiza, mort en 2003. VIGNERON (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Effectivement, je viens de consulter la section Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France, qui explique les dispositions relatives au droit de reproduction des sculptures en France (subtilité juridique que je ne connaissais absolument pas), et mon image semble tomber dans le cadre d'application desdites dispositions. A moins que le fait que le sujet principal de ma photo soit explicitement le phare de Biarritz lui permette d'échapper au couperet... En tout état de cause, je ne m'oppose nullement à la suppression de cette image si la majorité des intervenants se prononce en faveur de cette suppression.
--
JPI (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The photo has to be deleted, since this church was built in 2000, and there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. К сожалению, фотографию следует удалить, так как церковь 2000 года постройки охраняется авторскими правами ещё 70 лет после смерти архитектора. Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:SG102553.jpg
- File:SG102554.jpg
- File:SG102555.jpg
- File:SG102556.jpg
- File:SG102562.jpg
- File:SG102563.jpg
- File:SG102574.jpg
- File:SG102586.jpg
- File:SG102587.jpg
- File:SG102591.jpg
- File:SG102599.jpg
- File:SG102602.jpg
- File:SG102603.jpg--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this illigal graffiti is a derivative from the Mario character owned by Nintendo and is thus a derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is rather de minims an the sculpture (the main object) is also "interesting" enough. Keep and maybe pixzelize. It's also open art and FOP. --Kungfuman (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is only FOP if it's permanent. And the photo does not present the sculpture as a whole, so the intent of display is clearly on the Mario graffiti.--141.84.69.20 12:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I confirm the doctrine (as well as an arrêt from the France's Cour de cassation) considers graffiti as an ephemeral work (like sandcastle or ice sculptures), and not a permanent one. --Dereckson (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is only FOP if it's permanent. And the photo does not present the sculpture as a whole, so the intent of display is clearly on the Mario graffiti.--141.84.69.20 12:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have hundreds of Graffiti images in Category:Graffiti and subcats. And Graffitis are considered permanently (at least in some countries, not sure about Ecuador). See this image and the license File:Flickr-spoogman-cc-by.jpg. I still think it's de minimis (compare the portions). If you remove or pixelize Super Mario the image would still showing a useful view of the monument and the location and maybe the background building, thus de minimis. But for my part it could be pixelized. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- FOP would have nothing to do with it if the person that painted the graffiti doesn't own the copyright. It is unlikely that an official Nintendo rep sprayed the graffiti. The focus of the current image is the ironic graffiti that makes the statue look like a Mario game, so I don't think de minimis would apply either. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you can tell by the file's usage, it is being used to display Mario Brothers on WMF projects. I've uploaded an edit removing the ironic Mario graffiti (though I'm not a shop expert so someone might want to do a better job). Pixelating the art would create a distraction that would make the file near useless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is absurd, the file is used in some Mario articles, but there is no Mario, it's confuse. And about copyright infringement, come on guys, it's a photo of a monument, not a direct reproduction of Nintendo art work, and even if it was, can be considerer fair use.
- Commons doesn't allow fair use. You can't have it both ways. If the image is used in Mario articles, obviously the Mario in the image is not de minimis, but rather it was the focus of the image. A graffiti artist does not have the right to release Nintendo's copyright, and Nintendo did not choose to have their IP used in this manner. Besides, if it is fair use, then why not use an actual picture of Mario, instead of this half-assed work-around? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is absurd, the file is used in some Mario articles, but there is no Mario, it's confuse. And about copyright infringement, come on guys, it's a photo of a monument, not a direct reproduction of Nintendo art work, and even if it was, can be considerer fair use.
- Also, you can tell by the file's usage, it is being used to display Mario Brothers on WMF projects. I've uploaded an edit removing the ironic Mario graffiti (though I'm not a shop expert so someone might want to do a better job). Pixelating the art would create a distraction that would make the file near useless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- FOP would have nothing to do with it if the person that painted the graffiti doesn't own the copyright. It is unlikely that an official Nintendo rep sprayed the graffiti. The focus of the current image is the ironic graffiti that makes the statue look like a Mario game, so I don't think de minimis would apply either. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete any revision where Mario is not obscured or removed, as this is being abused as a FOP/de minimis/fair-use workaround. Keep any revision that does not feature Mario. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're wrong, we couldn't abuse of FoP in this case, as (i) FoP in Equador only applies to permanent work ("... situada en forma permanente ...") (ii) we've a legal opinion from a court graffiti is an ephemeral work with solid arguments (the fact anybody could retoy or erase it) (iii) we don't have any legal opinion graffiti could be instead a permanent work (I ignore here the Kungfuman comment, as long as he doesn't note what jurisprudence or doctrine consider them as permanent works).
- You're again wrong, as fair use isn't allowed on Commons.
- Are you willing to help with copyright analysis or only hunt with stupid arguments any video game related file only because I deleted your Ninja Turtles logos for copyright infringement?
- DR aren't a game, it's serious business. --Dereckson (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Graffiti is illegal, therefore no copyright. In this case, it is also de minimis. Yann (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The previous DR was wrongly closed; it is irrelevant whether the graffiti artist can claim copyright on the creativity in their graffiti. What matters is whether their graffiti violated Nintendo's copyright on Mario, which it clearly does. Nor is this violation incidental to the image (de minimis) - the violation is the primary motivation for the photo, as demonstrated by the file description given by the uploader ("There was this art/monument in Quito, Ecuador on Brazil Ave. at America Ave., which nobody understood what stood for, until someone painted Mario Bros and the question mark over it. Now it makes sense."), and the filename given by the uploader ("File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG"). The copyrighted material is absolutely not incidental to the image ("look, here's a sculpture - someone's graffitied it, how annoying, I wish it wasn't in the photo"), it is the point of, and motivation for, the photo. The file is even in use on Wikipedia to illustrate Mario (de:Super Mario Bros. 3). There may be good uses for this file, but they will all require reliance on fair use of copyrighted material, which Commons does not allow (Commons:Fair use). Now, a version of the file with the copyrighted material photoshopped out has been uploaded at File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg; this file should be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, due to the violation of Nintendo's copyright on Mario. In view of the real use of this image on our projects, calling it de minimis is wishful thinking.
- However, as Nintendo might even benefit from this image (showing the reputation of Mario), it might not be impossible to get a permission from them for this image. Anybody willing to contact their legal dep. (Nintendo, US) noalegal@noa.nintendo.com? --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know of any precedent for that. What form of permission would they give? I'm all for trying to save an image in use, but I'm a bit stumped as to how this would work. If there is no precedent, it's certainly worth trying to create one, and documenting it! Rd232 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think if we get an email from Nintendo legal dep. saying they have no problem with using/publishing this image, I think this would be sufficient for us to keep the image. Asking for a license might be too complicated (3 different copyrights in this photo) and might put the barrier too high. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mm, I would worry about such an email being enough for Commons reusers. It would be fine for Wikipedia (and more likely for agreement to be had if permission is for that specific purpose). Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- We could ask WMF legal to consult us on that issue. They can't file the request by themselves, for wellknown reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure - but I'm not going to pursue it myself, I don't think the chances of success are high enough that I'm going to take it on. Rd232 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- We could ask WMF legal to consult us on that issue. They can't file the request by themselves, for wellknown reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mm, I would worry about such an email being enough for Commons reusers. It would be fine for Wikipedia (and more likely for agreement to be had if permission is for that specific purpose). Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think if we get an email from Nintendo legal dep. saying they have no problem with using/publishing this image, I think this would be sufficient for us to keep the image. Asking for a license might be too complicated (3 different copyrights in this photo) and might put the barrier too high. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know of any precedent for that. What form of permission would they give? I'm all for trying to save an image in use, but I'm a bit stumped as to how this would work. If there is no precedent, it's certainly worth trying to create one, and documenting it! Rd232 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think deleting this is en error, but I am not going to fight for it. It is not either a good or important picture. I have more useful thing to do. Yann (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear violation of our copyright policies, per Rd232. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment': "(Copyright) Protection does not, however, extend to the title or general theme for a cartoon or comic strip, the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes."[10]
- Cartoon characters are trademarked to their creators, and Artwork of cartoon characters are copyrighted to their Artists. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how this is different from File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg? Seeing that the pyramid is much more visible and central than the Mario graffiti? Yann (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OMG, Yann, do you want to have that also re-opened? The closing admin said this was a borderline decision. Besides, as most of the discussion is in French, it would be of little practical help here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. I think it is accepted that in this image the pyramid can't be avoided as in all the panoramas in here, and that it is therefore OK. And I see so difference with the Mario case here. Yann (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OMG, Yann, do you want to have that also re-opened? The closing admin said this was a borderline decision. Besides, as most of the discussion is in French, it would be of little practical help here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Louvre pyramid is itself a problem case, but it qualifies largely because the pyramid is an intrinsic, unavoidable, and non-removable part of the Louvre scene. Using the criteria at COM:DM:
| Item | File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg | File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG |
|---|---|---|
| X=Louvre Pyramid | X=Mario graffiti on sculpture | |
| 1. the file is in use to illustrate X | Yes | Yes |
| 2. the file is categorised in relation to X | Yes | Yes |
| 3. X is referenced in the filename | No | No |
| 4. X is referenced in the description | Yes (but description indicates X is secondary) | Yes (and description indicates X is primary) |
| 5. X is cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless | Yes (X cannot be edited or cropped out whilst still showing the primary image subject and leaving a usable photo) | No (This version has the graffiti edited out) |
| 6. X is the reason for making the file | No | Yes |
Rd232 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, your table is useful, but I have some issues. Some of these are objectives criteria, some of subjective ones. I think that objectives criteria are more reliable than subjective ones.
- You seem to think that the file name is important to determine DM. Therefore I renamed it. No such issue anymore.
- Criteria #4 can be easily changed.
- Criteria #6 is your interpretation. Both pictures could be taken with or without this reason. Yann (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So only criteria #5 is remaining. Yann (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The aim is to determine the subject of the image - if the copyrighted element is incidental to the subject, it is de minimis. Or if the copyrighted element is an unavoidable and unremovable part of the subject, but not itself the subject, it is de minimis. #4 helps us determine #6 - though #6 is anyway clear in this case - read the File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG file description. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I understand how you take your decision. Like I said above, I don't care much about that picture. I think you are too restrictive, but it seems that I am in a minority. I am not going to participate in this case further, unless you have new arguments, and you want specifically my opinion. Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to reconsider your views. De minimis is fundamentally the idea "yes, this is a violation of the law but it's too small a violation to matter, so it doesn't count. That basic understanding of what de minimis means has to inform our interpretation of how to apply it to particular cases of copyrighted works appearing in Commons files. Rd232 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- To me, it is quite clear that your interpretation is often (if not generally) too restrictive. cf. the Le Corbusier's plaza. Yann (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to reconsider your views. De minimis is fundamentally the idea "yes, this is a violation of the law but it's too small a violation to matter, so it doesn't count. That basic understanding of what de minimis means has to inform our interpretation of how to apply it to particular cases of copyrighted works appearing in Commons files. Rd232 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I understand how you take your decision. Like I said above, I don't care much about that picture. I think you are too restrictive, but it seems that I am in a minority. I am not going to participate in this case further, unless you have new arguments, and you want specifically my opinion. Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The aim is to determine the subject of the image - if the copyrighted element is incidental to the subject, it is de minimis. Or if the copyrighted element is an unavoidable and unremovable part of the subject, but not itself the subject, it is de minimis. #4 helps us determine #6 - though #6 is anyway clear in this case - read the File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG file description. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Work of sl:Jurij Zaninović (Giorgio Zaninovich), who died in 1946; therefore copyrighted until 2017. Nominated due to COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Dragon Bridge - Ljubljana - Little Dragon.jpg
- File:Dragon Bridge - Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Dragon Bridge Statue.jpg
- File:Dragão (8554818027) (2).jpg
- File:Dragon bridge statue.jpg
- File:Dragon bridge-2.jpg
- File:Dragon Bridge.jpg
- File:Dragon bridge.jpg
- File:Dragon Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Dragon on Dragon Bridge (cropped).jpg
- File:Dragon on Dragon Bridge.jpg
- File:DragonBridge Statue Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Dragons of Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Ljubljana by Martin - 01.JPG
- File:Ljubljana Drachen Brücke 03.jpg
- File:Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png
- File:Ljubljana dragon - detail 190px.png
- File:Ljubljana Dragon Bridge.JPG
- File:Ljubljana dragon closeup.jpg
- File:Ljubljana dragon statue.jpg
- File:Ljubljana zmaj.jpg
- File:Ljubljana2 084.JPG
- File:Ljubljana2 085.JPG
- File:Ljubljanjski zmaj.JPG
- File:Ljubljanski zmaj.jpg
- File:Ljubljanski zmaj1.JPG
- File:Mali zmajček.jpg
- File:Statue of Dragon, Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).JPG
- File:Zmaj na lučeh.jpg
- File:Zmaj na Zmajskem mostu.jpg
- File:Zmajski most (Resljeva).jpg
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_50px.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As long as they are properly tagged so they can be undeleted in 2017, I guess there is not much to argue here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Later deleted:
.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately, no Freedom of panorama for sculptures both in Russia and in the U. S. These files are derivative works of Soviet statues created in the 1930s or later, hence not Public Domain.
- File:Сквер Героев Революции, Новосибирск, за Домом Ленина.jpg
- File:Сквер героев революции Новосибирск, у Дома Ленина.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев Революции у Дома Ленина Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер героев Революции у Дома Ленина, Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев Революции Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев революции Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев революции, Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев Революции, Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск вечный огонь.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск М - 30.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск ЗИС - 2.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск ИСУ - 152.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск БМ-13.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск танк.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы", Новосибирск надпись.jpg
- File:Монумент "Славы" Новосибирск.jpg
- File:Сквер Героев Революции, Новосибирск, рука с факелом.jpg
A.Savin 09:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ritterhahn (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploads for a hoax article in en-wiki, w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nogg. Probably, copyvios as well (some photos have low res & no EXIF, and some photos have hi res & different cameras).
Trycatch (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. {{Speedy}} all! They were most likely all taken from the web. All were previously published on different sites. The probability of copyvio is nearly 100% --McZusatz (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy. The first is a copyvio from http://louisaenright.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/april-2-2010/, the third is a duplicate of File:Red Junglefowl hen India.jpg with wrong attribution and therefore copyright violation, the last is a copyvio from http://dragoness-e.dreamwidth.org/69283.html. Stolen photos abused for some stupid hoax. Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BifshteksSs (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Genetics baby (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
no FOP in Belgium. Built in 2005. 84.193.66.106 16:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is very unclear what the building is. It is just a sfere with no special architecture features. All round planetariums would then be protected. Only the full picture wich make clear the original idea of a restaurant would be protected as in: [11]Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The building is not the primary objective--__ wɘster 17:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
