This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete the statement intialy written on the file descriptions in 2007 is not an agreement between the copyright holder and the uploader that allows the uploader to upload. Its an non-transferable agreement that the uploader can use a file, it neither allows the uploader to transfer this usage rights to others nor does it allow the uploader to waive copyrights or to claim that the copyright holder waived copyrights. Its something like a en:time for print agreement, uploading with a pd-self claim is far out of the uploaders competences. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a fine point, but " for any type of use he wishes" is very broad. Since the rule is to construe ambiguity against the drafter, I would read "any type of use" to include use on Commons, according to Commons rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The initial statement says "I, <licensor> give permission for <licensee> to use the pictures taken on 7-24-07 by myself, for any type of use he wishes." This is an non-transferable license. A free license means that anyone can reuse the file for any purpose, the copyright holder not agreed to such license. The reuse permission is restricted to one person and therefore fails Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could go back on forth on this for a long time. Sub-licensing is one of many possible uses of an image. Therefore the very broad "any type of use" includes sub-licensing. I don't even think it is ambiguous, and to the extent that you might think that it is, as I said above, the rules of construction require that ambiguity must be construed against the drafter -- that is, against the interests of Gauderman. Certainly that is what the uploader thought -- the same version of the description reads, " Gauderman has released the copyright to me". If the right to sub-license the image were not to be included, then Gauderman would have had to say so explicitly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carefull, "Gauderman has released the copyright to me" is the uploaders interpretation of the "release below". But the release is not a copyright transfer or a copyright release. The uploader is not the copyright owner, so he cant waive any rights or license them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am going through a bitter divorce and any pictures of me located online makes it easy for my soon to be ex husband to track me down. I had to delete my facebook account for these reasons and it would be great if this photo could be deleted as well. If my name could be removed that would be great or just put ITC or Chief Petty Officer without my name. Please help! 108.93.104.14017:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image is currently released by US Navy with the same caption. Asking the Navy to remove personal details from it (or even delete the image at all) before asking here would be a lot easier.
Anyway, I'm sure your husband already knows that you were in the Navy in September 16th 2011, and this image can't help him to track you down.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
O.K. Sent off an email to photographer owner to Norway and sent you (Wikipedia Commons" - <permissions-commons>) a copy of email. Asked them if they would ...license your "Norway Apollo11 display" picture under CC BY-SA 3.0? Should hear back in a day or two.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Received message from Åge Hojem, NTNU Museum that they WILL license under the license CC BY-SA 3.0 and have forwarded email of this message to permissions-commons on Friday, November 30, 2012 6:43 AM.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Recent sculpture in Detroit. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Recent sculpture in Detroit. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Recent artwork in Detroit. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged as PD with the reason "I copied this from a old book published before the Chinese copyright law established". This is a spurious reason, and as the uploader did not state which book he took the picture from it is not possible to ascertain its copyright status. BabelStone (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather concerning that a Commons admin from China does not know that Chinese Copyright Law retrospectively restores copyright to pre-1990 works. Chinese copyright law provides copyright protection for the life of the author plus 50 years following the end of the calendar year of death; 《书法论丛》 was written by Shen Yinmo 沈尹默 (1883-1971) who died 41 years ago; therefore his book 《书法论丛》 is still under copyright until 2022 according to Chinese law. BabelStone (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Most crests and logos of this type are subject to copyright. In my opinion this crest passes the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, and should therefore not be on the Commons. I have copied the file over to en.wiki for fair use. Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think it's a clear derivative work, with clear intention of a photographer to catch the poster itself. I put it under the discussion just because it was uploaded years ago, so don't want to SD it. Masur (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The belfries look quite modern and e.g. this image doesn't show them. They and also other architectural elements were probably added according to the plan by Franc Kvaternik during the last renovation in 1993. There's no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar(t/p)11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Probably a copyright violation regarding the coloring. The original (first version) might have been taken from here. Whether Rec79 and Quantum 4600 are the same is doubtful. Rec79 must prove to us that he has colored the picture. Rec79 has just cropped the image and removed the words "The Imperial Family". Ras67 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is Artandimage. The artist did NOT grant permission to put this image into the public domain. He granted permission for me to post it for Wikipedia purposes only. It must be removed! Help! Artandimage (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is Opendude42. Artandimage has attempted to remove the Help:Contents page. This has disabled users from using the Help pages. The image shoould be removed, but the page should not! Opendude42 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Sorry, of course I want the listed category file to be deleted (due to a mistype in its name), not the help file itself which I inspected only to see how I do this. I simply assumed that when I click "nominate for deletion" I had first to specify the file which I wand to be deleted. -- Karl432 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
everyone can make another upload of this book with my permission. It is not necessary to be a copyright-owner although I am one.
The copyright to all the articles from scientific journals you find links to in the lists of references on Wikipedia-pages belongs to the journals. Still no journal inserts any links or makes uploads here. The meaning of this encyclopedia is to make scientific information avialable to everyone and for free.
Thousands of geoscientists have read this book already. In a good encyclopedia the lists of references should always be complete. Therefore the book should be available for other editors, who want to insert the link to their pages for completion.
As "own work" it has the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license
Because I don't have any financial interest, this cannot be called promotion. On so many Wikipedia pages we find the links to books and articles made available to read for free. We could call all this "commercial advertising of books and journals", but we don't. If this would all be "promotion", we could shut down Wikipedia. This is NOT about business but about natural-science making knowledge available to everyone.
Kind regards - Geomensch
There are other interests besides financial ones, and I cannot find anything which says that the Commons is intended to be a repository for self-published books. It's for images and other media files, not books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we actually using this book as a reference on Wikipedia? Do we have any evidence of notability? We don't publish original publications here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Notability: Why don't you ask Professor Andrew Knoll in Harward?
2. Use: The normal way for using something on Wikipedia is to FIRST make it available
in W. commons and THEN use it, because it is not possible the other way round.
3. Original: Would you prefer publishing plagiarism instead of originals?
4. Publish: Making something available for an encyclopedia is not "publishing".
This research-work has been published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt, Germany.
Otherwise it wouldn't have an ISBN.
Kind regards - Geomensch
The normal way for referencing a work on Wikipedia is not to make it available on Commons. It's to publish it and let people reference the printed version. Nor does it look like it passes , making it unusable on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to have this here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above and beyond any scope questions, there are many pictures in this file that aren't copyrighted to the author, as well as a note at the bottom of page 34 that says "Not all the right-owners of images could be found. If ownership of the rights gets proved, the honorary customary in the trade will be discharged afterwards." This does not satisfy the copyright requirements of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author has a written permission from the copy-right-owners of each of the images.
It is the normal procedure, if someone writes a book, to contact the owners of the
images he wants to use and ask the copyright-owner for a printing-license.
There are two images, the owner could not be found. The same sentence, that the
customary trade will be charged afterwards is in the book BIOLOGY from Neill Campbell.
Why are you so concerned about these things? This can't be the real reason,
why you want to delete it. Someone can reference the printed version, but the
printed book costs money. Then you say, this would be commercial advertising.
Your own suggestions are not in accordance with the Wikimedia principles.
Is there any "reason to have this here":
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mentor_and_niece.jpg ???
Geomensch
You don't have written permission to release the pictures under a Free license. Nor do we allow people to upload images that we don't know who the authors are to Commons. Yes, copyright violation is a reason we delete files here, as is failure for them to be released under a Free license (which you have no right to do).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Geomensch: There are any number of reasons why someone might want to use that photograph, and since it's been properly released there's no reason for it to be deleted. I assume you cited it for no other reason than it was uploaded by Prosfilaes. Such an ad hominem approach doesn't do your case any good, so I would be careful about continuing in that fashion. Your book is clearly self-published, meaning that it's not usable as a reference on, at least, English Wikipedia, so it's clearly beyond the scope of Commons in that respect. I have yet to see an argument for why it should not be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could be please log in to edit, and not edit from an IP, and make an effort to follow the normal commenting procedure here, which is to use colons to indent, and not break up each sentence into a separate line? It would make reading the discussion much easier. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just saw this but I need some clarification. First anyone can get an isbn, it does not prove something has been published. All it proves is that it has been registered with a national library. So if it is self published then it is not valid on WP, if it is published then by ISBN it will be searchable on fdatabases such as Amazon, every valid book can be searched there and an attempt to buy it. If it is published then all copywrites of all parts of the book are held by the publisher, I have authored many articles and I assure you final copywrite is held by the publisher, including all images. Not by the author, authors have a limited copywrite, basically they own the intellectual property of the book. If this books copywrite is in question go to the publisher, directly, and ask. Best way to be sure. Until then, delete, as without a clear permission we are in violation of copywrite. It can always be uploaded once the correct rights have been done. Faendalimas (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs in the US at least don't have any connection to the national library. I'm not sure even that a publisher who has bought a batch of ISBNs has any obligation to notify anyone about how they're using them. All copyright on a book is held by the author until the author signs it over in writing (except in cases of work for hire). It's frequent that publishers will demand the copyright, but far from universal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs really aren't relevant to this discussion, since self-publishing firms (companies such as Books on Demand who will publish for a fee anything sent to them) put ISBNs on their product. The ISBN also doesn't have anything to do with copyright, at least in the U.S. It may be worthwhile re-focusing on the relevant issues here:
There is a clear copyright notice on the book that has been uploaded here.
A copyright is not necessarily incompatible with our licensing, but it does require that the owner of the copyright release their rights under a license compatible with our policy
It has yet to be established that Geomensch is the owner of the copyright named in the copyright notice, which would normally be done through Commons:OTRS, and a OTRS ticket would be added to the files description page
It seems to be the case that Commons is not intended to be a repository for self-published books, as opposed to books which are out of copyright
If this is the case, then as a self-published book (which cannot be used as a reference on, for instance, English Wikipedia), this book would be outside the scope of the project
The sum of this would seem to me to call for deletion of the file, at least until Geonmensch's bona fides have been proven, although, even then, the self-publishing question would seem to disallow re-uploading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there's one more issue; there's images in the file that aren't releasable by the author of the work, and even images that the author of the work did not have permission to use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it was published in Germany, USA is not relevant is it. But in any case I checked it is published and appears in the ISBN databases, sells for $18.50 if you interested. So the question is of copywrite, not self published. If correct releases have not been done through Wikipedia:OTRS then delete until this is done. Faendalimas (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be so fine, if at least two people here would say the same thing.
Images not releasable by the author sounds plausible to me. I have already
made an upload somewhere else and people can find it there under different
conditions but still free of charge.
Regards - Geomensch
Geomensch, my only concern here is copy-write, this book has been listed for deletion under a copyvio. Therefore that's how I am looking at it. I checked if it was actually published in response to the other comments and determined that it is. I am curious as to why the self-published issue is coming up, as self published usually refers to making pdf's or printouts from your own computer and making it available, not going to a publisher and having it done. Academic Press will also publish anything for a fee and no one seems to have an issue with them. However to upload a copywrited document you do have to go through a procedure, which you have not done. You may hold the copy-write, I can't know that from the evidence presented, through OTRS you will have to demonstrate you hold the copy-write to their satisfaction before it would be approved. That is the issue. Until that is done, the file needs to be deleted. Feel free to ask for further review of that from an admin if you wish, that is your right. I consider the other issues being brought up as irrelevant, because you will have to address them with OTRS when you licence the document correctly. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: "copyright" not "copywrite". It's the right to control copying of one's intellectual property.
Things published by an "on demand" publisher such as Books on Demand or Academic Press are still considered to be self-published, as the publisher does not exercise any control over their content, such as my checking for accuracy, or simply by selecting one book to publish over another. Because of this, self-published works are not considered to be "reliable sources" by English Wikipedia, the largest of the many Wikipedias, and a major user of the files on Commons. I cannot speak to the standards on other the Wikipedias of other languages, but if their standards are similar, that makes this particular work less than useful for the Commons. In addition, I don't believe Commons was intended to be a vehicle for self-publishing, because it would be overwhelmed by people who want to promote their books without spending the money an on-demand publisher requires. This is why the self-publishing issue is being raised, as well as the copyright issue.
As to the latter, as I stated above, Geomensch must prove to COMMONS:OTRS that he or she is the person who holds the copyright to this work and therefore is able to re-license it. The final issue is that of the images which, as Prosfilaes above. With these issues still outstanding, deletion is the best course of action, as the work can always be re-uploaded in the future if all of these issue are cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on copywrite I meant what you said, moment of not concentrating sorry.... as for rest I have already agreed with the deletion and the image issue and actual right to re-licence will be dealth with by COMMONS:OTRS, on self-publishing, I wish that on-demand did not exist, but that's not going to happen, and since it is becoming more and more common practice, I doubt WP can be that strict on it since no one else is. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am German and I contributed this work in Wikimedia in German language. The condition was, that it is my own work. So it is a contradiction, if now others say, contributions here should not be "own stuff". They definitely should be.
There was nothing to read about OTRS. In case I do need an extra licence from OTRS for America, I need time to read and understand their information in english, which is a foreign language for me. The information from various mentors here are contradictory and therefore not helpful at all to learn to fullfill the OTRS-conditions.
As you see now, some reason behind trying to bring me in trouble are not these formal things but something else. Beyond My Ken expressed it clearly now: He sees a scientific dissense of my theory with today's main-stream theories needing collisions and impacts as supposed creative processes in nature, although they are most destructive and not able to generate the structures we see in the cosmos. It cannot be the intention of an encyclpedia to only present a limited scientific world view. It should present a wide spectrum, also views that seem to be - as Martin said now - "out of scope". On the Wikipedia page about earth-expansion, the list of references is maybe considered as a collection of crazy ideas. But still the references are there, so that people can learn about them and develop a critical view, arguments against it and so on. So the question about the content of my work is behind this going in circles here. Otherwise ALL mentors would give clear instructions free of contradictions. Eliminating pluralism of scientific opinions is not in accordance with a democratic project like Wikipedia and W. commons. Dogmatism cannot enhance education for natural-scientific thinking.
I understand that peer-reviewed articles are preferred. My work will undergo a peer-review very soon. Many colleagues read it and gave me positive feed-back and critical comments, so I could develop it further and improve things. They always used the same link to see the reworked version. This is not the usual way to use W. commons, but in this case it was good regarding the final results.
If you Google "Planet Formation and Evolution" and search for images, you find the work in the first line because the interest is high. This work is not out of scope scientifically, althought not everyone has enough multidisciplinary knowledge to be able to read and understand it entirely. Most scientists are very specialised, which is good, because this way they could help me to improve many details.
My only concern is now, that I don't want to give copyrighted images from others, who gave their printing licence to me, into a public domain. Therefore the upload must be somewhere else, where these images remain copyrighted in the same way as in my e-book. I need time to find out, if it makes sense to aquire an OTRS-licence for this one. I think an own homepage would be a better solution.
Thank you for your help and kind regards - Geomensch
Geomensch: Please listen carefully, because either there is a language problem or you are being deliberately obfuscatory: You must contact COMMONS:OTRS to establish your personal ownership of the material in order to justify your licensing it. If you don't, the material is likely to be deleted. Further, there is the question of whether the material is outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Three editors (including myself) have expressed the opinion that a self-published book is, indeed, outside of the purpose of this project -- do you have any answer to that?
It's interesting to me that you have concluded that I am objecting to your book on scientific grounds. The truth is that I haven't read your book, and that my objections, so far, have been on procedural and formal grounds, but it is very interesting to me that you have jumped to this particular conclusion, because it indicates to me that your theory is a fringe theory, and is not accepted within the scientific community. If that is the case, then you are using Wikimedia Commons as a way to circumvent the usual peer-review process, and to propagate your "theory" without being checked out by actual experts in the subject. I suppose that, for Wikimedia Commons, anyway, that is pretty irrelevant, but it does mean that your book – even if it is not deleted here – will never be accepted as a reliable source on English Wikipedia, and we both know that without that avenue of propagation, your theory is dead in the water. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I say that your theory will "never" be accepted on en.wiki, it means that if the book is not deleted here, I'm going to be looking out for any citations to it, and those will be deleted on sight. You cannot use the Commons as a backdoor into en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone expect, that my new results could be already "accepted in the scientific community"? This paper is only 3 month old. Now it has been offered to a peer-reviewed journal, they are interested and asked me to make an online-submission. So please be patient, every innovative discovery or idea needs a lot of time to be understood by everyone. Today's scientific knowlege and world-view is not the final one. If it would be, we could close down all the universities and institutes working on astronomic research about planet formation and the 196 scientists participating at the conference in Munich would not have needed to come from all around the world. There are still open questions and serious scientific problems to be solved in this field.
In Munich, the results of all the talks about the growth of planetesimals were, that this is still an unsolved problem. All colleagues working in experimental research say this freely. One speaker with a good sense of humor said at the end of the conference: t-drift probably dont want t-grow.
So please reduce your expectations. I know Wikimedia commons is not the proper place for a research work in this form. I will either give the copyright to the journal who publishes it, or - in case the text is too long with over 9000 words - receive a book peer-review.
This takes time as you shurely know. Feel privileged to be one of the first thousand people able to read it. I cannot contact OTRS immediately, as I am sure OTRS won't accept a not yet peer-reviewd book. Therefore I need to prepare the online-submission to the journal first. In case the journal can publish it as an article (9000 words is very long), the Wikimedia-version MUST be deleted and I myself will make a deletion request. In case they suggest a book peer-review, I have to wait for the result and then contact OTRS.
In any case, I have to prepare the online-submission to the journal first and wait for the result of the peer-review in the first place. This takes time as you know. So keep it or delete it now, just as you and the other mentors like. I agree with the deletion, because that is better than waisting more time here discussing with mentors that don't even have the same opinion.
Kind regards - Geomensch
OK, by your own admission, your theory is "not accepted by the scientific community", and has not, as yet, been peer-reviewed. You ask me to "reduce my expectations" because your "theory" has not been accepted. So why would you expect Wikimedia Commons to host your theory, when it hasn't been accepted by the scientific community, and is undeniably a fringe theory? Thanks for that admission. Delete, pleaseBeyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beyond My Ken,
it could be hosted, because in the lists of references there are many publications that are considered either outdated or not yet verified. For example the neutrino-theory as explanation for an expanding earth is cited correctly, as the theory itself EXISTS, although it could not be proven. This is necessary to give natural scientists the possibility to develop their own investigations, also in order to falsify things. Natural science is not a church, where there is only ONE book that counts. We don't live in the time of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition when pluralism of opinions and controversal scientific research was forbidden. This outdated attitude, which is not accepted by the scientific community at all, was the biggst obstacle for scientific progress. Therefore they didn't have any progress in science. They needed the bible to explain everything. The earth was flat and Rome was the centre of the universe. The first person who dared to suggest another view was Gallileo Gallilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei . Are we the roman catholic church of that time or are we modern open minded scientists who don't need to fear new discoveries and controversal discussions? http://phys.org/news/2011-11-reservoir-young-planetary.html
Thanks and bye bye - Geomensch
No, thank you, for your quite convincing exposition as to why your "theory" is just complete bullshit. (Besides, anyone who can't seen to understand the usual conventions about how to format comments here is unlikely to be responsible for revealing great new truths about the universe.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Insultations and vulgar vocabulary are not permitted here. Thanks for revealing your mental universe. Rgds - G.
Some time ago, the German administration sent a letter to a 2 years old baby, who didn't have the German citizinship yet, with an official command to leave the country! :-))) Enjoy the sunday - G.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Speedy Keep Please we can see is simple,right? Please see that waving window,which is simple and failing the thresold of originality.--Yangmic (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Blatant copyright violation. This is the corporate logo for HQM Sachsenring GmbH, a company still in operation today as a subsidiary of Härterei und Qualitätsmanagement GmbH. It was uploaded to commons by someone claiming to be the copyright holder, which is false. Balph Eubank (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Photograph from 1940s or 1950s, probably copyrighted, unlikely own work by the uploader, no details on permission given. A.Savin22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per nonsense title probadly grabbed from a blog (confirming the user behaviour in Commons: mostly copyvios). Gunnex (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
So, in your opinion we should let this rather likely copyvio (COM:DW) remain for long enough time that it will be distributed all over the web, so that the original artist and rights holder will have no more chance to have his copyright respected, right? --Túrelio (talk)
Uh, no, because most likely we don't know who the artist is. This is where we must balance the potential educative value of the work in question, and assessing whether or not it's valid under existing laws or not. The fact that Philippine copyright law does not make exemptions for FoP is lamentable, and I agree that we should respect copyrights, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop people from taking pictures of supposedly-copyrighted buildings and statues and the like anyway, particularly in cases wherein the educative value of the work ought to be more important than fears of violating copyright, and since there is no case that I know of in this country wherein an architect or a sculptor has sued a photographer simply because he/she decided to take a photo of something, and by chance it was distributed across the Web.
So therefore, Túrelio, let me throw back the question at you: are you saying that we should no longer hold any photo scavenger hunts in the Philippines because of your concerns about potential, not demonstrated, views on copyright infringement on the part of those "aggrieved" architects and sculptors of the Philippines that you're talking about? (Also, it would have helped if you assumed good faith on the part of the uploader: as it is, most participants in photo scavenger hunts have little knowledge of copyright law to begin with.) --Sky Harbor(talk)17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try a Straw man defense. What you in The Philippines (as well as competitions organizers in other countries) should indeed consider before planing the next WLM or similar competition, is how to (try to) educate people in advance about what should not be uploaded to Commons. Or eventually to locally (off- or online) review their images, before uploading them to Commons, instead of leaving the resulting problems for our sysops. But that's not relevant for this discussion.
I'm sorry that I also have to dismiss your "since there is no case ..." rationale, which is not acceptable per our policy.
And you might educate yourself about what a deletion request (DR), as this one, is[1] and what it is not. AGF has simply no place when discussing derivative works such as this one. You might have raised AGF, if I had doubted that the uploader is the photographer. But that is not the issue here, as everybody can see.
Such as regular (i.e. slow) DR is IMO a rather mellow approach. And before starting this DR, I had asked the same uploader for information (User talk:Alecxacahing) about several of his/her uploads, but didn't get any reply until now.
I'm aware of how Commons policy works, thanks. For one, intellectual property jurisprudence on things as specific as the threshold of originality is sparse in the Philippines (or non-existent), so the question here is how to interpret the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines' provisions on derivative works. Specifically, to reference, Section 173.2:
173.2. The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall be protected as new works: Provided however, That such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.
The law clearly states two things: one, that a derivative work's copyright, whilst independent of that of the work from which it is derived, does not affect the existing copyright of the original work, and second, the derivative work should not imply that there is a right to using the original work. The key part of the provision that I'd like to highlight here is "right to using the original work". To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Philippine jurisprudence that suggests that people who have taken photographs of standing buildings or statues have in any way implied that they have a right to use the original work in its original form. At the same time, we ought to be cognizant that more often than not, we don't know who the sculptor or architect is. Therefore, in that case, even if we want to give attribution to the creator of the said work, this would be impossible to do. (Therefore, I found it highly inappropriate that you asked the uploader, who is a photo scavenger hunt participant who will probably only be on Commons, or even Wikipedia, this one time and will probably have no idea how to answer the questions you're asking her.)
The point here is that Philippine law, in the absence of explicit freedom of panorama provisions, does grant some sort of leeway in terms of defining the bounds of what derivative works are. In such a case, those Filipinos who have taken photos of buildings or statues should be granted the benefit of the doubt: that their photos, while constituting new works, are still mindful of the fact that they're photographing existing structures which, unbeknownst to them, is copyrighted. There is no intention on the part of the creator of that derivative work to infringe on the copyright of the original work, if such exists. --Sky Harbor(talk)23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Intention" is rather irrelevant for the question whether copyright is violated or not. In most jurisdictions, intention might have only relevance when a court has to decide how much the violator has to pay to the violated.
2) We are (and have to be) rather cautious with "sculptor or architect is unknown" statements, as — at least for more recent works — this doesn't remove copyright. In some/many jurisdictions there are precise provisions about the duration of copyright protection for works which are really anonymous. Notwithstanding that the "artist unknown" claim on Commons is often only a lazy excuse. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Il s'agit d'un centre commercial très récent (ouvert en mai 2012), en France, et unique dans son architecture, donc non libre de droit. Pas de liberté de panorama en France. Merci d'avance. Architectes : Antonio Virga et Vincent Parreira. Propriétaire : Compagnie de Phalsbourg Mith (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ça veut dire quoi "Pas de liberté de panorama en France.", précisément? Pour moi cette affirmation gratuite ne veut rien dire puisque si je fais un panorama du massif central, je ne pense pas que cela pose de problème! Cramos78 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mith said, it's a very new mall (2012 may), copyrighted architecture by Antonio Virga and Vincent Parreira (alive). And no FOP in France. ----MGuf (d) 18:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pourquoi supprimer cette photo innocente et banale ? Insinues-tu que la propriété intellectuelle des architectes serait enfreinte ? Sur quelles sources (lois, jurisprudences) te fondes-tu ? La France n'est pas la Belgique, avec sa risible histoire de la photo de l'Atomium. --Nnemo (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
La photo est prise en France, le pays hébergeur de Wikimedia Commons n'a rien a voir la dedans, c'est le lieu où est prise la photo qui compte. De plus, merci de rester zen, je ne suis âs responsable des lois française, je suis moi même pour la liberté de panorama. Mith (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The first files (beginning of the list untill File:重庆开县爱心托老院画册15.jpg), file File:QQ图片20121114130812.jpg and 4 google maps screenshots are copyright violations. The whole rest is a private picture album. Commons is not a place for copyright violation and Commons is not a private picture album. See Commons:Project scope.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
out of scope - promotional - large number of very low quality personal images with no educational value - this person has no wiki articles and google search doesn't show notability - in any case a small number of personal images are allowed on Commons but not this huge volume
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. IMHO untrusted user2x blocks uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so these ones can't be believed either.
Speedily deleted as these are obvious copyvios, again. The second image has been derived from this photo (cropped and mirrored) which is copyrighted by Fernando Dantas/Gazeta Press (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Two photographic works taken nearly in the 1980s. Recently uploaded here, available on several external websites for a longer time. Unlikely own work by the uploader. No details on permission available.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It says that this image is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but there is no information on when or where it was published, so there is no way to verify this claim. It is only possible to verify that the image was taken before 1923, which is not enough. If it is in fact an unpublished image, then the copyright expires either 70 years after the death of the photographer or 120 years after the photo was taken. There is no evidence that the photographer died at least 70 years ago, and the photo is not yet 120 years old. The photo is sourced to this URL, which doesn't work.
The file information page contains a statement which suggests that the uploader has misunderstood how copyright terms work:
This photograph was taken c.1905, and hence the US copyright has expired.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep For the benefit of others (rather than the blocked user who raised this DR using an IP to sock puppet) who might be interested in the facts—When Ross Watson posed for me, he wanted to be taken with his paintings in the main part of a photo. I deliberately arranged to take this photo instead with only incidental partial shots of the paintings in the background to avoid any problem against De minimis. The painting on the right hand side, of which you can see around 1/3, itself is a faithful 2D reproduction of a classical painting which itself is public domain (as it was painted in the 17th century), apart from the inserted modern nude guy eating the apple (Steven Webb), this is part of his Classic De Novo series; consequently the amount of original work in this photograph amounts to something less than 5% of the image area. On the right you can see 1/5 or less of another faithful 2D reproduction of a public domain classical painting (I think a Caravaggio, someone might correct me) where you can see none of the "De Novo" new subject matter. If there are sufficient viewpoints that this is not quite enough, then I'll happily crop the portrait down further. Yes, Ross is a well know gay painter of gay subjects and I'm known for being a gay Wikimedian. No doubt there are some of my stalkers that find this interesting, hopefully enough for a massive gay network conspiracy story or some other garbage claims and unimaginative abuse and threats from the devoted tag-team with their unhealthy interest in my personal life, who have pursued me on-wiki and off-wiki all year for daring to contribute to open knowledge. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you got him to pose for you, couldn't you simply get him to also give permission for the partial painting shot? That way there wont be any future problems from people? (By the way, here is the full image in a smaller form. Here is the original by Simon Vouet, who, for some reason, Mr. Watson spells as Simeon Viouet in articles about his version, making it hard to find) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rape of Europa, by Simon Vouet, c.1640, a cropped but faithful reproduction of which is in the background of this portrait photo, with the insertion of a topless Steven Webb (a well known gay figure) in Classic De Novo style.I already do have his consent, just verbally at the time rather than in writing. I could just stop taking photographs for Commons until I get around to carrying a printed form for the subjects to fill out giving consent and explaining that their release will be sent to OTRS (where there is no legal guarantee of confidentiality as it is run by volunteers on good will rather than under contract). However, under UK law I believe there is no demonstrable copyright or personal rights legal requirement for me to do this, particularly when it is plainly obvious that Ross (a) posed for me giving explicit verbal consent for the photograph to be taken (b) he chose to pose in front of his paintings. Any argument against Photographs of identifiable people is weak for potential deletion of this portrait as the photo was taken in a free open public display area, Ross Watson is a public figure with no expectation of privacy in this situation, and I specifically took time to explain that it would be helpful to have a portrait photograph that could be used on Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia and how difficult it was to take an image, such as those he suggested from his website, and later seek a free release rather than just using my personal photo that I could release myself, before I clicked the button on my camera. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have added the {{Consent}} template to the image page in accordance with best practice suggested in the guidelines. I do have Ross' email address but I prefer not to hassle him about this portrait photo, especially considering it has yet to even be added to the English Wikipedia article about him. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a cropped version that takes the De Novo element of Steven Webb out of the background, reducing any De minimis argument to vanishingly improbable. I believe this reduces the value of my photograph, as the fact that one could appreciate something about Ross Watson's work being around gay subjects and the humour of Classic De Novo as part of the photograph, rather than only seeing the faithful 2D reproduction side, was a key factor in the its educational value to Commons in line with the project scope. Unnecessary chiselling away of value based on vague interpretations of guidelines that are neither supported by copyright case law or good practices that apply human rights legislation, should be avoided if our open knowledge mission is up to snuff. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Side by side comparison of cropping
Before
After
Less than 4% DM?
Less than 1% DM?
I uploaded over your crop an example of what I was suggesting - a head shot for use on pages discussing his biography. I don't see how this head shot would be a problem. Edit to add - I'm not an expert, but his website describes this as part of his "Myth and Reality" series and not part of his Classic De Novo or Classic De Novo II series. Just an FYI. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I used the best guess from the exhibition catalogue but this painting was not actually listed under either category there. The series names are rather conceptual anyway, the humour and characteristic style of sticking Stephen Fry with his iPad into a 17th century work of art remains the same. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply because there are a lot of IP votes that don't necessarily take into consideration some extenuating factors. The outfit worn by Mr. Ross is not one found in a search of other images related to him, in the movies by others, etc. I looked. It is obviously enough to look like it was part of an interview and pose. He would run in Fae's circle of interest and region, so there is no reason to think this is someone he could not bump into. Statements about the image itself from the keeps and deletes are silly - what matters is if the image would violate enough of Mr. Ross's ability to make money off of it. It is only partial and not enough to recreate his effect. It is also a parody of an already public domain work (it isn't in the UK nor owned by the Portrait Gallery so there is nothing to fear on that level) with much of the parody (but not all) negated by the cropping. Could he be cropped more? Sure. Does he necessarily have to be? No. My suggestions above are to pre-empt wasted time and effort, but not a requirement. The image should be used on the w:Ross Watson biography but isn't. He should also be contacted about releasing a couple of substandard, small versions of one or two of his parody images (250x250 or less, just enough to fit on the Wiki page) for use to show his level of parody. It has become semi-famous in Capote type of manner and there are quite a few reports from people commenting on it because of the celebrities involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Dgf32 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: This file is missing essential license information, specifically evidence of permission. File has been tagged for more than 7 days, and is therefore ready for speedy deletion. Converted to DR by me, as image was originally uploaded to :en in 2008 with a clear statement from uploader as "self-made" and no evidence to the contrary has been presented so far. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - I don't think the name of the file has any effect on it's copyright. But if it does just rename it insted of deletion. --Sporti (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this random game is de minimis, like posters here or here. Like in these two cases, the photo primarily shows the architecture. It's only that this time it is copyrighted. In addition, as the author is Rokometni klub Grosuplje, the image should be deleted if there is no OTRS permission in due time. I've tagged the image with 'No permission since'. --Eleassar(t/p)11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The intent was probably to show the monument in its entirety, and the context. In any case, it's evident that the image has been cropped just above this relief, which means it has been included in it on purpose and gives it a special emphasis, so it is not de minimis. --Eleassar(t/p)13:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to show the unveiling of the monument as the title says and that is what the photo shows. Anything else is just your interpretation. --Sporti (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
To find out what was going on this topic see here in the discussion page.
per EXIF data "PHOTO by: Alex Oliveira/startraksphoto.com-AOH_1147Startraks Photo New York, NY For licensing please call 212-414-9464 or email sales@startraksphoto.com", no permission
Delete unless there is a separate release received via OTRS, as has apparently been requested according to the linked discussion, these must go as a copyright violation. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not see such images in other sites in the Internet, and the author I could not talk to him, its shape is busy in his life. What can I do now, unfortunately. MyCanon (✉) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have uploaded many pictures of this user from flickr. Look at some pictures:
This user has only the images for The Peabody Award in all the years. It only publish of these pictures in Flickr, with proper licenses in Wikimedia commons. Best Regards. MyCanon (✉) 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: Many (all?) of these files carry a tag indicating that an email has been sent to OTRS, but lacking a ticket number. I have access to the OTRS system, and did some searching, but was unable to find any related tickets. Can anybody here clarify whether, when, or by whom an email was sent to OTRS, and whether it addresses the points brought up above? -Pete F (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So far this is not handled, I am of the opinion these images worth staying in Wikimedia Commons. Because All images were reviewed by an administrative and not interested in this topic. For it was about two months, a candidate for deletion. Just keep these pictures and finish this topic. Best Regards. MyCanon (✉) 15:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
superseded by file:Scala Form C-major.svg. The term "Typ" was replaced by "Form." In English the term "Shape" might be better, but "Form" is understood both in German and in most European countries as well as in the Slavonic. By the way the 7 was replaced by Major7 (j7), which simplifies the handling of intervals in chords. (Compare Cmaj7 or Cj7) - Mjchael (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I file this DR not in my name or out of my own conviction, but per the malformed deletion request of IP 91.7.42.96, who wrote
"Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich bin Eigentümer der Immobilie Rathausplatz. Ich habe einer Veröffentlichung des Bildes nicht zugestimmt. Ob die Fassadenmalerei von dem Künstler Bickel stammt ist zweifelhaft und nicht eindeutig nachgewiesen. Bitte entfernen Sie das Bild.
Hallo Herr Leismüller, aus welchem Grund wollen Sie das Bild denn eigentlich gelöscht haben? Ob es von dem einen oder anderen Maler gemalt wurde, ist doch für eine Löschung völlig irrelevant. --Túrelio (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kein valider Löschgrund angegeben (es gibt kein "Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache", außerdem greift die Panoramafreiheit) - auf de würde ich jetzt LAE machen, hier kenne ich das Prozedere aber nicht. Chaddy (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formelles LAE gibt es hier nicht und ist in diesem Fall auch nicht sinnvoll. Die DR ist ein geeigneter Ort, um Antragsteller besser aufzuklären. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Valider Löschgrund, da ja offenbar Eigentümer und als solcher mit entsprechenden Rechten der bildlichen Verwertung ausgestattet, aber einstweilen mutmaßlich unbegründet. Soweit ersichtlich dürfte das Bild von einer öffentliche Straße aus aufgenommen worden sein, damit griffe die entsprechende Ausnahme ("Panoramafreiheit", § 59 UrhG) und das Eigentumsrecht muss zurücktreten. Siehe BGH, Urteil vom 17. 12. 2010 - V ZR 45/10, Rn. 16 (http://lexetius.com/2010,6114#16). Herr Leismüller, könnten Sie uns ggf. mitteilen, falls der Aufnahmestandort doch keine öffentliche Straße ist? Falls es Fehler in der Bildbeschreibung oder der Zuordnung gibt, würden wir uns zudem über Ihren Hinweis freuen. Besten Dank und freundliche Grüße, —pajz (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kein "valider Löschgrund" - es gibt kein Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache! behalten! Die Panoramafreiheit ist übrigens eine Ausnehmeregel des Urheberrechts und nicht des Eigentumsrechtes. -- 193.187.235.1713:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hättest du den Link gelesen, hätte sich diese "Frage" wohl selbst beantwortet. ("Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs stellen das ungenehmigte Fotografieren eines Gebäudes oder eines Gartens und die Verwertung solcher Fotografien allerdings nicht in jedem Fall eine Eigentumsbeeinträchtigung dar. An ihr fehlt es vielmehr, wenn ein Gebäude oder eine Gartenanlage von einer anderen Stelle aus als dem Grundstück, auf dem sie sich bleibend befinden [...] fotografiert werden und solche Fotografien verwertet werden [...] Das hat der Bundesgerichtshof aus einer Parallelwertung zu § 59 UrhG abgeleitet. Die urheberrechtliche Freistellung soll nicht eigentumsrechtlich unterlaufen werden können."). Grüße, —pajz (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the statement intialy written on the file descriptions in 2007 is not an agreement between the copyright holder and the uploader that allows the uploader to upload. Its an non-transferable agreement that the uploader can use a file, it neither allows the uploader to transfer this usage rights to others nor does it allow the uploader to waive copyrights or to claim that the copyright holder waived copyrights. Its something like a en:time for print agreement, uploading with a pd-self claim is far out of the uploaders competences. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Pensacola.svg. Χ (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep not very large, but enought for me to be de minimis. ----MGuf (d) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Info File:GB 15-A.jpg has now been restored with an OTRS ticket. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alecxacahing#File:WTNaga_HMMM_A11.JPG){kind=link}
_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_36.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_35.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_32.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_34.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_33.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_29.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_31.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_30.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_28.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_26.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_25.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_23.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_24.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_22.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_20.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_21.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_18.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_19.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_17.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
