Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Derivative of copyrighted poster Morning ☼ (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I missed that detail. Go ahead. Garsd (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. INeverCry 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster Morning ☼ (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I missed that detail. Go ahead. Garsd (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. INeverCry 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Lacks educational value Jonund (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment In addition, the upload or here, the flickr bot user should care of his transfers. That means not only conducting a preselection of the images to get transfers but also adding proper categories. This is especially of importance if the upload is done by an admin who should set a good example. 
Delete: no encyclopedic value. --High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment High Contrast, I am going thru my uploads, as one is able to see from my contribs. On the issue of uploads, I would rather have 100 inscope images, with one out-of-scope image in any upload. This image has been deleted as being out of scope, and would have been caught by myself as I progress through uploads. russavia (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted as out of scope russavia (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope - seems promotional Ignacio 
(discusión) 08:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Album cover. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright 2012: Image Circus / Michael de Louw Onderwijsgek (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by January Morning ☼ (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's filename "David Carter Google Snapshot" unlikely own work. More likely a video still/capture. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by INeverCry. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unclear educational value. -Pete F (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image Nachosan (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image Nachosan (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image Nachosan (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image Nachosan (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image Nachosan (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused image copied from publication or webpage, not own work of uploader and likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously recent statue, located in the U.S., which has no freedom-of-panorama-exemption from copyright for non-buildings. -- Túrelio (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Alexandre Descatoire is dead in 1949. No freedom of panorama in France. Copyright violation. 82.124.152.123 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with uploader. Unused filw without a potential educational use, as far I can imagine.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. Sreejith K (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It must be a fate ! :)) per nom. & see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fakhrparki2.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan.
- File:Fakhrparki1.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki2.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki3.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki4.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki5.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki6.jpg
- File:Fakhrparki7.jpg
- File:Shovkat Alakbarova.jpg
- File:Evgeny mikkeladze1.jpg
- File:AlbertAgarunov.jpg
- File:Alif Hajiyev.jpg
- File:Kerimov Kazimaga.jpg
- File:Mekhti Abbasov.jpg
- File:Mukhtar Gasymov.jpg
- File:MustafayevChingiz.jpg
- File:Rashid Behbudov.jpg
- File:Huseyn Javid Home-Museum at Nakhchivan (rug dedicated to H.Javid).jpg
- File:Imam Mustafayev e-citizen.jpg
- File:Mahmud Aliyev e-citizen.jpg
- File:Flower holiday Heydar Aliyev's portrait.jpg
- File:Library at Nakhchivan.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Its a logo Jmvkrecords 
Intra Talk 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
author: Rafael Rodriguez, permission: Dominio publico, suggest that uploader is not the author Morning ☼ (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Author: Rafael Rodriguez, permission: Dominio publico, which suggests that uploader is not the author Morning ☼ (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image of a non-notable person, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful.--i.е. v-mail 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No source for lower image, upper seems to be from Commons. Neither is selfmade. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The given license doesn't seem to apply, I don't see a connection with Bosnia and Herzegovina at all. Lymantria (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect, correction is available with File:Mechanismus Malonestersynthese V4.svg Mabschaaf (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, uploaded by Ramontaua (talk · contribs) in 05.2008: Previously published at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5644815 (10.2007, © Alle Rechte vorbehalten von richardson.ricarte, identical res) but the Panoramio comments revealed that this image was taken by a guy named "Washington" in 05.2007 (later confirmed by "richardson.ricarte"). Gunnex (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Derivative work of the full ver. of this image. According to iraq Slogger (23 June 2009), this is KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government)'s photo . See also Commons:Deletion requests/KRG images Takabeg (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Takabeg.--Rapsar (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. There is no proof of {{Self}}. {{PD-because|City Picture}} is invalid reason. Takabeg (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Takabeg.--Rapsar (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File only available for educational use, this is insufficient for hosting on Commons WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File only available for educational use, this is insufficient for hosting on Commons WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Isometric Systems in Isotropic Space-Map Projections, The Doughnut (tangent torus) By Agnes Denes, 1980.jpg
[edit]File only available for educational use, this is insufficient for hosting on Commons WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope Liliana-60 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File only available for educational use, this is insufficient for hosting on Commons WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Commercial Logo; not to simple to be PD-textlogo. A5b (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This picture is published in Berna Laçin's official Twitter account first. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Taken from a movie probably. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the picture. Rapsar (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The monument is from 2007 [1], and there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine, so that the image unfortunately has to be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot taken from http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/134371/slutdebatten-1998-del-1 Entheta (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot taken from http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/134371/slutdebatten-1998-del-1 Entheta (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot taken from http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/134371/slutdebatten-1998-del-1 Entheta (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. I think these files should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image of a non-notable person, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The image is out of scope - there is no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
spam image (note uploader name) DS (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional, Out of Scope Techman224Talk 03:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Also, the man is blurred. Jonund (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not a private photo album. Jonund (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No FoP in Estonia Ivar (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is a general view of the district. Any particular building is de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)- Keep Problem with Estonian copyright law (i.e. no FoP) only emerges when the main subject of the photo is under copyright. When there is a general view then this can't be put under copyright according Estonian law. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality "groin shot" of a human penis (13-year old boy, according to the description). Recommend deletion in accordance with Commons policy. Senator2029 18:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot from a video game. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This file is supposed to be showing User:Tuxdiary's deformed penis which was caused by Peyronies Disease. However, it is out of focus and overly zoomed. One can't determine if it is bent to the side, or if it is hanging limp (with the photo needing rotation). In any case, this image is not useful for an educational purpose and should be deleted. Senator2029 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File name and file extension suggest that the image is a screenshot. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dark & grainy. Unable to identify anotomical features. File has no educational value. Delete per COM:PENIS guidelines. Senator2029 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete per COM:PENIS Mjrmtg (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
It says that the file is in the public domain in Germany because the artist died before 1943, but there is no evidence that the artist died before 1943. The poster is from 1941, so it is very unlikely that the artist died before 1943. Also, the {{Anonymous-EU}} template can't be used for German artistic works. They enter the public domain in Germany 70 years after the death of the artist, whether anonymous and not. See the warning at the end of the template.
This is protected by copyright in the United States because it was published less than 95 years ago. Stefan4 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable website. Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It says that this was made by Hitler and that it is in the public domain in Germany because Hitler died more than 70 years ago. This is incorrect; Hitler died less than 70 years ago, and it was probably not made by Hitler himself either. The copyright expires in Germany 70 years after the death of the artist.
This is protected by copyright in the United States, where the copyright expires 95 years after publication. Stefan4 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Contains deleted image. Rapsar (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect mechanism, corrected version available: File:Ritter-Reaktion V.3.svg Mabschaaf (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It is copyrighted by AP, not by VOA. Xiaojingfang (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
aucune preuve de licence compatible donnée par DPPI cobra bubbles (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image from Estonian president's visit to Sweden, where the president is not depicted, only a group of children. Fails to meet criteria for Commons:Project scope . Årvasbåo (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image from Estonian president's visit to Sweden, where the president is not depicted, only a group of children. Fails to meet criteria for Commons:Project scope . Årvasbåo (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image from Estonian president's visit to Sweden, where the president is not depicted, only a group of children. Fails to meet criteria for Commons:Project scope . Årvasbåo (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image from Estonian president's visit to Sweden, where the president is not depicted, only a group of children. Fails to meet criteria for Commons:Project scope . Årvasbåo (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image from Estonian president's visit to Sweden, where the president is not depicted, only a group of children. Fails to meet criteria for Commons:Project scope . Årvasbåo (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hardly not the uploader's own work, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Herman_Watzinger_.jpeg Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a derivative work of South Park. Jespinos (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture; work by the architect Leo Czerny (1871-1924) in collaboration with the engineer Rudolf Kiffmann (unknown death year). No evidence that the engineer would have died before 1945 (he is mentioned in news in 1939). Eleassar (t/p) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No source for copyright, I find "own work" qeustionable. We do have an SVG of the coat of arms of the Italian Marina Militare. Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per the reasons above. --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free, this has been deleted over and over and over. Fry1989 eh? 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free, this has been deleted over and over and over. Fry1989 eh? 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Photo of identifiable individuals, taken in a private place, with no evidence of consent given. See COM:PEOPLE. – Wdchk (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Source given as paperfishdesigns.com; no longer visible on the site, but seems unlikely to have been freely licensed. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Promocional. Sin reelevancia. ProfesorFavalli (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Chart contains copyrighted material, the seal of the Undergraduate Student Government at Stony Brook University. This seal is fair use at en.wiki: File:USG Seal.png.-- GrapedApe (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
For discussion: whether image is in scope, on the grounds of "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Group of students in an informal pose. See COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. – Wdchk (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
SVGs exist of the Union Jack. Fry1989 eh? 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The rendered PNG of the SVG of the same size is 725 bytes and has less artifacts, whereas this JPEG is 4080 bytes. JPEG was never intended for small vector art. This image also has the wrong aspect ratio, and is orphaned. No conceivable purpose. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Logo of the rock radio network Radio Hauraki, and thus highly likely not the work of the uploader. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent (and thus still copyrighted) sculpture. No copyright exception in France for sculptures. Léna (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate file. Jedijoe82 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted and recreated as redirect per nom. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this building is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Built and designed in 1997 by Giuliano Parmegiani and Lorenzo Giacomuzzi Moore.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome). Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this building of Pier Luigi Nervi (died 1979) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome). Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone could delete the old version of this image, I already change my mind and don't want my older version image been download and use. — иz нίpнόp 
07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as this appears to be a derived work of copyrighted art on the label, see Commons:CB#Product packaging. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Apparently grabbed (as indicated) somewhere from internet. Gunnex (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded as own work, but the same image was previously uploaded (same title, same uploader) with Source = Was sent to me personally, Author = Plaza Premium Lounge Management Limited. Previously deleted for no permission, evidence of permission still needed. January (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
no, this is from a commericial digital historical atlas Antemister (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Commercial Logo; not too simple to be PD-textlogo. A5b (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
used only in hoax page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- also - File:Niclogiacoat.jpg, File:Niclogiamap.jpg, File:WordlyFrontSide.jpg, File:50Wfront.jpg, File:CoatMonarchNiclogia.png, File:MonarchNiclogianFlag.jpg, File:Kemi.png, File:Kannelmaki.jpg, and File:Gibraltar Rock.jpg (the outline is part of the silliness). DS (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- .... and, in fact, just about everything at Special:Contributions/Nixi. DS (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Image involving deleted image (File:Hewler-kurdistan (8).jpg). Takabeg (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It is of no educational use and does not fall into the exception of use on a personal user page. FrankDev (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: This upload is the very only contribution of this user (not just at Commons but on all projects). Commons is not a container for personal photos. This picture can be restored if there are real contributions and the if the uploader wants to put this on his userpage. AFBorchert (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture. No freedom of panorama in Slovenia (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unknown author, seems modern. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Work by Hubert Drofenik from 1938; no evidence that the architect died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Made in 1913-1917; no reliable source stating that the author was dead before 1945. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The building and the relief were made in 1913-1917; no reliable source stating that the author was dead before 1945. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Constantine Attila Jr 2 Banner.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unconstested DR. MBisanz talk 05:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Signatures#Images in signature, in any case unused -- moogsi(blah) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please go ahead, I’ve abandoned this image shortly after I created it. I discovered it’s not any better than pure text
—Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 13 January, 2013; 18:43
Deleted: Unconstested DR. MBisanz talk 05:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
If the author is unknown, how can the uploader use a license tag that claims the uploader is dead for at least 70 years? Besides, is the author really unknown or just "unknown to the uploader"? Rosenzweig τ 22:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The author is unknown, Leiwig described no author. But you're right, I think the license {{PD-EU-Anonymous}} would be better. Kind regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- That somebody does not name an author does not mean that the author is unknown. The image shows a postcard. What is printed on the back of that postcard? --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) The postcard was printed in a book with name Es war ja nichts - Nationalsozialismus in Rheinhessen. In the register of illustrations you find no creator of this image. Best regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- We don't even know from when exactly this postcard is. It cannot be from earlier than 1932, because Hitler was made honorary citizen there in 1932 or 1933. But is it impossible that it is from 1943? And even if it were from 1932, it would most likely still be protected in the US until 2028. --Rosenzweig τ 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- At the latest 1933 Hitler got honorary citizenship in Essenheim. Also the postcard is in a section, in which you can read something before 1943. So I think, the postcard was made in the beginning of Nazi Germany (about 1933 to at the latest 1935–1936) Best regards and good night --Jivee Blau (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr Mossel, an expert of National Socialism in Essenheim and Rhenish Hesse, said he was sure that the postcard was made in 1932. But unfortunately this and the creator are not noted on the back. Due to its I will add template „{{Speedydelete}}“. Thanks to all for the clarification. Kind regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- At the latest 1933 Hitler got honorary citizenship in Essenheim. Also the postcard is in a section, in which you can read something before 1943. So I think, the postcard was made in the beginning of Nazi Germany (about 1933 to at the latest 1935–1936) Best regards and good night --Jivee Blau (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- That somebody does not name an author does not mean that the author is unknown. The image shows a postcard. What is printed on the back of that postcard? --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete "Author unknown" does not mean "Anonymous work". Probably not free per German UrhG. Yellowcard (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As copyright status is questionable (autor not known) and as uploader himself asked for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't have the white background, it's not the Olympic flag, it's just the rings with a extra wide border space. Should be deleted and replaced with File:Olympic flag.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Your argument appealing for the filename is insuficcient, but already exists File:Olympic_rings_with_white_rims.svg, then is neccessary to edit the articles that uses this image. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unconstested DR. MBisanz talk 05:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No permission Hayk (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Says the photo was taken by his friend; I think this needs explicit permission of some kind... --moogsi(blah) 13:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
несвободный файл Хайзенберг (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Probable copyvio --moogsi(blah) 08:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Titodutta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Movie poster Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hold working here on Com:L --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've tagged the file for permission. INeverCry 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to common naming template: Created with Asymptote -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 07:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree, but please note that Template:Asymptote has optional parameter (license of the source code) and template: Created with Asymptote does not have any parameters. Ilya Voyager (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Any problem to merge this into one?! --
ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 08:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Any problem to merge this into one?! --
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
double: San Giorgio Maggiore (Venice) contains also the two files and more Oursana (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I transferred the few llinks and redirected. Badseed talk 09:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Files of Renzo Piano in Italy
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Acquario di Genova II.jpg
- File:Genova akwarium neon.jpg
- File:Genova-Acquario-ingresso-2.jpg
- File:Genova-Acquario-ingresso.jpg
- File:Genova-Acquario.jpg
- File:Insegna Acquario di Genova.jpg
- File:Porto Genova 0182.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0186.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0190.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files of Renzo Piano in Italy
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files of Renzo Piano in Italy
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Bigo Genoa.jpg
- File:Genova Bigo noc.jpg
- File:Genova-DSCF7939.JPG
- File:Genova-DSCF7943.JPG
- File:Genova-Porto antico-Grande Bigo.jpg
- File:IMG 0498.JPG
- File:Porto Antico by Night.jpg
- File:Porto antico genova 3.jpg
- File:Porto Antico Genova varie 01.jpg
- File:Porto Genova-DSCF1524.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- As i say in it.wiki I have some doubts about the "Bigo". The "bighi" (plural of "bigo") were the traditional harbor and boats derricks in Genoa (also the uncommon italian word "bigo" come from the genuese dialects [2], in Italy the most used definition is "albero e picco di carico"). Renzo Piano had take the traditional design, has make it bigger and in steel, and has put a cylindrical panoramic elevator where usually there would be the load. It's above or below the Commons:Threshold of originality?--Yoggysot (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The derrick would not have a copyright -- utilitarian. But using the derrick as an element of a building is creative. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Biosphere of Genoa
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Biosfera PortoAntico.jpg
- File:Bolla Piano Genova 1.jpg
File:Porto Antico Genova varie 07.jpg→ de minimis
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that File:Porto Antico Genova varie 07.jpg could fall into Commons:De minimis (see also the last deletion request about this category).--Yoggysot (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why this deletion request has not been categorized among the kept cases of no-fop in Italy? Raoli ✉ (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete the first two. Keep File:Porto Antico Genova varie 07.jpg that fall into de minimis.--Dega180 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry, but except for the palm trees, copyrighted architecture is the whole image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Biosphere of Genoa
[edit]The museum was completed in 2001 by Renzo Piano (born in 1937). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the architect is required.
- File:14 Genua Hafen Biosphäre (7776535644).jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.01.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.02.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.03.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.04.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.05.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.06.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.07.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.08.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.09.jpg
- File:Biosfera (Genova) in 2021.10.jpg
- File:Biosfera - panoramio.jpg
- File:Biosfera Genova - panoramio.jpg
- File:Biosfera1.jpg
- File:Genoa - Renzo Piano's Biosphere - panoramio.jpg
- File:Genova per voi 5 - Flickr - https-www.facebook.com-robertotaddeofoto28.jpg
- File:La Bolla di Renzo Piano; Porto Antico Genoa (5700585868).jpg
- File:La sfera di Renzo Piano - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sfera di Renzo Piano - panoramio.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Lingotto 11.JPG
- File:Pinacoteca Agnelli.JPG
- File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli1.jpg
- File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli2.jpg
- File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli3.jpg
- File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli4.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The building is clearly the main subject of all these pictures --moogsi(blah) 03:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The building was completed in 2002 by Renzo Piano (1937–). there is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the architect is required.
- File:La Pinacothèque Giovanni et Marella Agnelli au Lingotto (Turin) (2860290263).jpg
- File:La Pinacothèque Giovanni et Marella Agnelli au Lingotto (Turin) (2861118854).jpg
- File:La piste dessai et la pinacothèque Giovanni et Marella Agnelli au Lingotto (Turin) (2861119518).jpg
- File:Lo scrigno.jpg
- File:Ls Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli progettata da Renzo Piano.jpg
- File:Piemonte (174).JPG
- File:Pinacoteca Agnelli - Torino.jpg
- File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli.jpg
- File:Torino Pinacoteca Agnelli alcuni anni fa forse autunno 2004.jpg
- File:Vista dalla passerella.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Lo scrigno.jpg, File:Ls Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli progettata da Renzo Piano.jpg, File:Piemonte (174).JPG, File:Pinacoteca Agnelli - Torino.jpg, File:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli.jpg, File:Torino Pinacoteca Agnelli alcuni anni fa forse autunno 2004.jpg, File:Vista dalla passerella.JPG since they were uploaded within the Wiki Loves Monuments Initiative, organized by Wikimedia Italy, as the template present in the file clearly states. As you can clearly see in the file, the organization who owns the cultural monument has authorized the publication of the images of the building with the license CC-By-SA 3.0, here. Keep the other 3 images too, since the authorization is not limited to the sole WLM iniziative, but is generic enough to allow other reproductions (it states hereby I authorize the publication of the images of the monuments owned by us or protected by us listed in this document [it follows a list with only this Pinacoteca] on Wikimedia Commons with license CC-BY-SA 3.0.--Friniate (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There is a specific authorization about this monument, obtained by Wikimedia Italia for Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 but valid for all its photos. The authorization is valid starting from 2014, and for "the building and the external architecture" ("edificio e architettura esterna"). --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete At least for the images that there isn't explicit authorization for since I find it hard to believe said authorization extends to all photographs of the monument in perpetuity regardless of if they were taken as part of the Wiki Loves Monuments Initiative or not. A random Flickr user has no connection to Wiki Loves Monuments or the agreement between them and the municipality what-so-ever. As the quote provided by Friniate says "I authorize the publication of the images of the monuments owned by us or protected by us listed in this document." "The images" clearly means images taken by Wiki Loves Monuments that were part of the agreement, not every image of the monument ever regardless of who took it or when it was taken. I'm neutral on the images that have explicit permission though since I don't really feel like dealing with the kind of insulting, arguementive nonsense from Friniate that I received in the other DR if I say I think they should be deleted. Although I can see an argument for why they probably shouldn't be hosted on Commons anyway. For instance that the city probably doesn't own the copyright to the monument to begin with and their "agreement" doesn't extend to the United States where the original architect would probably still retain the copyright regardless. But again, I'm neutral because I don't feel like dealing with Friniate bad faithed, abusive attitude about it anymore then I've already had to in the other DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Clearly" is taken from your profound knowledge of italian language isn't it? And why don't you want to delete the other two too? In the various DR you are defending 5 different thesis that contrast with each other with the sole and blatant aim to delete only for the pleasure of deleting, how can I not consider your behaviour as trolling? Friniate (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Per article 11 of the Italian Copyright Law, municipalities hold the copyright on works made on their behalf. What was linked above seems a valid permission also as regards copyright of photographs uploaded on Commons. --Ferdi2005(talk) 19:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per authorization. --Jaqen (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lingotto - Bolla
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Esfera cara este.JPG
- File:Esfera cara oeste.JPG
- File:Esfera y Helipuerto.JPG
- File:Helipuerto y Esfera este.JPG
- File:Helipuerto y Esfera oeste.JPG
- File:Helipuerto.JPG
- File:Lingotto 09.JPG
- File:Lingotto 14.JPG
- File:Lingotto-5.jpg
- File:LingottoBolla1.jpg
- File:LingottoBolla2.jpg
- File:LingottoBollaHelipad1.jpg
- File:LingottoBollaHelipad2.jpg
- File:LingottoRoof1.jpg
- File:LingottoTestTrack3.jpg
- File:Tejado de Lingotto con Esfera.JPG
- File:Tejado de Lingotto con Pinacoteca.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stadio San Nicola
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Renzo Piano (born 14 September 1937) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- CommentHere "Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis" we show this pictures of the inside of a stadium full of people saing that's it's OK (see its DR here) and it seem to be the same case of File:Stadio San Nicola - Curva Nord.jpg. --Yoggysot (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DannyGonzalez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Post-1923 works by Philip Alexius de Laszlo
[edit]1923 (Undelete in 2019)
[edit]- File:Benito Mussolini by Philip Alexius de László, 1923.jpg
- File:John Loader Maffey, 1st Baron Rugby by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
1924 (Undelete in 2020)
[edit]- File:Lady Louis Mountbatten1924.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Elisabeth von Rumänien.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Mrs. John Walter.jpg
- File:Sir Robert Gresley Eleventh Baronet 1924.jpg
1925 (Undelete in 2021)
[edit]- File:Laszlo - Lady Alastair Graham.jpg
- File:Marie of Rumania.jpg (c. 1924)
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Duchess of York (nee Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother), 1925.jpg
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Self-portrait, 1925.jpg
1926 (Undelete in 2022)
[edit]- File:Ailsa Mellon Bruce.jpg
- File:Isabelle d'Orléans, duchesse de Guise.jpg (c. 1925)
- File:Princess Beatrice by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
1927 (Undelete in 2023)
[edit]- File:Elinor Glyn, by Philip Alexius de Laszlo, 1927.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Miklós Horthy.jpg
- File:ScitovszkyTibor.jpg
1928 (Undelete in 2024)
[edit]- File:Andrew Elphinstone (1918-1975), by Philip Alexis de László.jpg ("mid 1920s")
- File:Laszlo - Jenő Rákosi.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Mrs. Edmund Buchanan.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Mrs. Paul Bridgeman and his daughter.jpg
- File:Le prince Louis II (1870-1949).jpg
- File:Louis II, Prince of Monaco, by Philip Alexius de Laszlo.jpg
- File:Richard Burdon Haldane, Viscount Haldane by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
1929 (Undelete in 2025)
[edit]- File:Maréchal Lyautey 1929.jpg
- File:President Calvin Coolidge.jpg (between 1923-1929)
1930 (Undelete in 2026)
[edit]1931 (Undelete in 2027)
[edit]- File:Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
- File:Duke of York1931.jpg
- File:George Bell 1931 cropped.jpg
- File:George Bell 1931.jpg
- File:Gladys Vanderbilt Széchenyi.jpg
- File:Mellonz.jpg
- File:Mrs Philip Kindersley.jpg
- File:Nina Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck.jpg
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Duke of York, 1931.jpg
1932 (Undelete in 2028)
[edit]- File:Cosmo Gordon Lang.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Alice, Countess of Athlone.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Mrs Virginia Heckscher McFadden.jpg
1933 (Undelete in 2029)
[edit]- File:GwenFfrangconDavies.jpg
- File:Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
- File:Lang-Balliol.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Mabell, Countess of Airlie.jpg
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Retrato de Don Alfredo Hirsch, 1933.jpg
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Retrato de Doña Elizabeth G. de Hirsch, 1933.jpg
1934 (Undelete in 2030)
[edit]- File:André Maurois, by Philip Alexius de László, 1934.jpg
- File:Duchess of Kent.jpg
- File:Duke of Kent1934.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Princess Marina of Greece, 1934.jpg
- File:Laszlo - Princess Marina of Greece.jpg
- File:Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie by Philip Alexius de László.jpg
- File:1942 William Temple Philip De Laszlo.jpg
1936 (Undelete in 2032)
[edit]1937 (Undelete in 2033)
[edit]Unknown date (Undelete in 2033)
[edit]- File:Bruno Schroder 001.jpg
- File:Bruno Schröder.JPG
- File:Henry Birchenough00.jpg
- File:Infantin Pilar.jpg
- File:Lady Rachel Cavendish by Philip de László.jpeg
- File:László Fülöp Mumm báró.jpg
- File:László Fülöp Női arckép.jpg
- File:László Portrait of Ottó Baditz.jpg
- File:László Self-portrait.jpg
- File:Mumbat47.jpg
- File:Mumbat48.jpg
- File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - self-portrait with family.jpg
- File:Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois.jpg
- File:VictoriaMilfordHaven.png
Philip Alexius de Laszlo died in 1937. Although he is Hungarian, according to en:Philip de László, "In 1907 he moved to England and remained based in London for the remainder of his life." Hence we can presume all his 1923 or later works were first published in the UK. That being the case, they were still in copyright on the UK's URAA date in 1996 (they only expired in 2008) and thus are copyrighted in the US. Even if he performed commissions elsewhere, they would be in copyright on the URAA date in many other European nations as well, including (from Commons:International copyright quick reference guide) Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Vatican City. Unless the specific nation of first publication can be identified and it's okay, we have to assume the worst. Unfortunately the dates of some works are not known and I couldn't find them, so we can only guess that they were published sometime before his death, and undelete in 2033. All these works will be transferred to Wikilivres after deletion.
Note: There is reason to believe at least some of Laszlo's works were published first or concurrently (within 30 days) in the US, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that any of the above were. If anyone can help find evidence for this, there's a good chance such images could be kept as Laszlo's works were generally not renewed in the US.
See precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:QueenPortugalAugustaVictoria.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg, where a 1933 and a c. 1936 Laszlo work were deleted due to the URAA. --Dcoetzee (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:L, looks pretty clear-cut to me. Thanks for cleaning up. Hekerui (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per UDR. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chudson022 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Playing card images made by user -- COM:SCOPE. File:Truns.jpg gets hundreds of google image search hits and is unlikely to be own work --
- File:Polimerización (1).jpg
- File:Negar ataque.jpg
- File:MagicCylinderYSDJ-EN-C.jpg
- File:Truns.jpg
- File:Gfhh - copia.jpg
- File:Fuerza de espejo.jpg
- File:Cvf - copia.jpg
- File:Createcard.jpg
- File:Createcard (12).jpg
- File:Createcard (11).jpg
- File:Createcard (10).jpg
- File:Createcard (9).jpg
- File:Createcard (7).jpg
- File:Createcard (6).jpg
- File:Createcard (5).jpg
- File:Createcard (4).jpg
- File:Createcard (2) - copia.jpg
- File:Createcard (2).jpg
- File:Createcard (1).jpg
- File:Creatd.jpg
- File:Fildness.jpg
- File:Holy trap´.jpg
- File:Union Sincera.jpg
moogsi(blah) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ara Pacis museum (Rome)
[edit]Sorry, but this building is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Designed in 2006 by Richard Meier.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Ara Pacis à Rome.JPG
- File:RIMG0004(1).jpg
- File:Roma ara pacis fuori lontano.jpg
- File:Roma ara pacis fuori vicino.jpg
- File:Roma Ara Pacis.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Not your fault. I suppose it has to go. Best regards Notafly (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC) :I thank you. -Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ara Pacis museum (Rome)
[edit]{{NoFoP-Italy}} Richard Meier is either alive, or has not been dead for over 70 years.
- File:LAra Pacis Augustae (Rome) (5977528602).jpg
- File:LAra Pacis Augustae (Rome) (5977528866).jpg
- File:Museo dell'Ara Pacis.jpg
Josve05a (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ara Pacis
[edit]Sorry, but this building is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Designed in 2006 by Richard Meier.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep this is a photo of Ara Pacis (that is in PD) and not of the building of Ara Pacis.--Dega180 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- You refer to the first! Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I refer to File:Meier arapacis10.JPG that is the only existing file in this deletion request.--Dega180 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, the second one was removed today by Blackcat without say it here. The first was already kept in the past. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I removed the first one.
- I refer to File:Meier arapacis10.JPG that is the only existing file in this deletion request.--Dega180 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this building is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Designed in 2006 by Richard Meier.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:8161 - Roma - Testo Monumentum Ancyranum presso Ara Pacis - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 29-Mar-2008.jpg
- File:8169 - Roma - Testo Monumentum Ancyranum presso Ara Pacis - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 29-Mar-2008.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying we should delete all the files in the category or only the two files listed here? Most of the photos in the category show only objects that are in the museum, so Keep. The two photos listed here show a little part of the museuem built in 2006 by Meier but the subject of these photos is not the museum but the text of the Res gestae Divi Augusti. Unfortunately it was built during fascism and not in ancient Rome, so I'm not sure about its copyright status: I
Abstain . --Jaqen (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've put in deletion only the two files listed here. Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Being aware of the limitation, I only pictured this detail (in fact, this is not a picture of the building, but of the inscription) because it is ineligible for copyright because it is an intentional copy of the Monumentum Ancyranum, therefore it lacks the character of originality which is necessary for copyright eligibility. Furthermore, the inscription runs on the base of the monument (which dates to the fascist era, not to the recent rebuilding of the Case above it), and even graphic elements are in the PD, since the "littera quadrata" of the Ancient Roman monuments was intentionally re-used here. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've put in deletion only the two files listed here. Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ponte della Costituzione
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Santiago Calatrava (born 28 July 1951) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Bridge in Venice by Calatrava.jpg
- File:La nouvelle passerelle sur le Grand Canal (Venise).jpg
- File:Ovovia ponte della costituzione-calatrava-quarto ponte canal grande-venezia.jpg
- File:Ponte Calatrava.jpg
- File:Ponte della Costituzione.JPG
- File:Vierte bruecke.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ponte della Costituzione
[edit]{{NoFoP-Italy}} Santiago Calatrava is either alive, or has not been dead for over 70 years.
- File:La nouvelle passerelle sur le Grand Canal (Venise) (6166578661).jpg
- File:Ponte costituzione.JPG
- File:Ponte della Costituzione at night.jpg
- File:Ponte della Costituzione Panoramafoto.jpg
- File:Venezia calatrava.JPG
- File:Venezia Venice Italy - Creative Commons by gnuckx (5022853402).jpg
- File:Venise - passerelle vers P. Roma.JPG
Josve05a (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Reggio Emilia-ponte sospeso
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Santiago Calatrava (born 28 July 1951) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. All of these files could lead to lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:01.06.2009 highway bridge.jpg
- File:Calatrava Bridge Reggio Emilia by night.jpg
- File:Pedonale, arco centrale, Reggio Emilia, Italia 9237.jpg
- File:Pedonale, arco centrale, Reggio Emilia, Italia 9251.jpg
- File:Pedonale, arco centrale, Reggio Emilia, Italia1 9247.jpg
- File:Ponte di Calatrava sull'A1 Catatrava bridge over A1 motorway.jpg
- File:Ponte di Calatrava sull'A1 Catatrava bridge over A1 motorway1.jpg
- File:Ponte Nord, Reggio Emilia-ponte sospeso.jpg
- File:Reggio emilia Calatrava Ponte 001.jpg
- File:Reggio emilia Calatrava Ponte 008.jpg
- File:Reggio emilia Calatrava Ponte 010.jpg
- File:Reggio emilia Calatrava Ponte 012.jpg
- File:Reggio emilia Calatrava Ponte 016.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment photograph taken while the bridge is under construction, pictures of objects under construction are not affected by this law, the photo is also available on Flickr Commons is just limited to share content, liability should therefore be given to non-commons Flickr . If a user of an image with such issues flicrk commons license then can take it, it says the Regulation. If the photo is taken from flickr because contrary to law then also removes the commons.--Pava (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Reggio Emilia-ponte sospeso/2
[edit]Bridge(s) by living architect Santiago Calatrava. Unfortunately there is still no FOP in Italy.
- File:Calatrava bridge fragment Reggio Emilia.jpg
- File:Calatrava South Bridge - Reggio Emilia, Italy - December 12, 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE - Reggio Emilia, Italy - Januray 30, 2009 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE - Reggio Emilia, Italy - Januray 30, 2009 - panoramio.jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE - Reggio Emilia, Italy - March 27, 2010 - panoramio - Giorgio Galeotti (1).jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE - Reggio Emilia, Italy - March 27, 2010 - panoramio - Giorgio Galeotti.jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE - Reggio Emilia, Italy - March 27, 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:CALATRAVA'S BRIDGE Reggio Emilia, Italy - March 27, 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Central Calatrava Bridge - Reggio Emilia, Italy - December 16, 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Italia-Reggio Emilia-ponte sospeso-Ponte di Calatrava.jpg
- File:La tecnologia LED nella Segnalazione di Ostacoli Volo - Ponte di Calatrava, Reggio Emilia.jpg
- File:Le Vele di Calatrava - Reggio Emilia, Italy - Januray 30, 2009 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ponte di Calatrava - Reggio Emilia, Italia - 26 Febbraio 2011 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Ponte di Calatrava - Reggio Emilia, Italia - 26 Febbraio 2011 - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Ponte di Calatrava - Reggio Emilia, Italia - 26 Febbraio 2011 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ponticalatravatramonto.jpg
- File:Vele di Calatrava - Reggio Emilia, Italia - 22 Aprile 2015.jpg
- File:Vele di Calatrava, Central Bridge - Reggio Emilia (RE) Italy - October 11, 2011 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Vele di Calatrava, Ponte Nord - Reggio Emilia, Italia - 14 Ottobre 2012.jpg
- File:Velecalatrava.jpg
Jaqen (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Personal pictures of user, not in use -- COM:SCOPE
moogsi(blah) 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Theo mayeur (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope.
- File:Théo Martin Victor Mayeur.jpeg
- File:Fabrice Mayeur et Nathan King (de gauche à droite).jpg
- File:Robin Mayeur (frère).jpg
- File:Théo Mayeur.jpg
- File:Numériser 5.jpeg
Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 7#File:The Battle of Bushy Run cropped.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Reopened discussion per request of Angus McLellan as there appears to be a question here. He would like to add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to the file. It seems to me that (as noted in the template itself) that template is problematic because it contradicts our clear policy -- see the first section of Commons:Licensing:
- "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media
- that are explicitly freely licensed, or
- that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
This is a clear delete because we cannot legally host it on our USA based servers -- unless it is PD-1923, which is unproven. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's PD-Canada. There's no simple way to tell if the work was registered in the US but even if it was I find no evidence of renewal, so the question of US registration is not relevant anyway. It was PD in Canada as of 1 January 2002 and, absent the URAA extension, would have been PD in the US at the same date. Unless you're taking it upon yourself to resolve the URAA extension question here, it's as unclear as ever and this can live here in the same Schrödinger's Cat limbo as the other gazillion URAA extended US copyright term files. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would not have been PD in the US on that date, per {{PD-US-1996}}. Unless I'm totally missing something, The only URAA date is 1996 for Canada. And yes, there are images on commons which violate the PD status, but w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a defense of those (I'm quite considering some sort of deletion nomination myself). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- And the 1996 date stems from the URAA, which was where we came in. If you'd care to approach the general question that's fine, but until then I don't think there's any valid reason to treat this image differently, enwp essaycruft notwithstanding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would not have been PD in the US on that date, per {{PD-US-1996}}. Unless I'm totally missing something, The only URAA date is 1996 for Canada. And yes, there are images on commons which violate the PD status, but w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a defense of those (I'm quite considering some sort of deletion nomination myself). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - see File:The Battle of Bushy Run cropped.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- 'Comment - I withdraw this deletion request for now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Renominating, along with File:The Battle of Bushy Run cropped.jpg. No publication date supplied. Author died 1951, was in copyright in Canada (50 pma) on 1996 URAA date, so in copyright in US until at least 2019. Lacking info on the publication date, assuming it was published before the author's death, we have undelete in 2047. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - unless it can be shown the item was published pre-1923, or {{PD-URAA-Simul}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately not in the public domain in the US, since it entered the public domain in Canada on 17 Sept. 1996, after the URAA date of 1 January 1996 InverseHypercube (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, where are you getting this 1996 date? It looks much older, the source confirms the 1946 date, and the public domain status. 117Avenue (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Canadian copyright law before 1999 stated that a work was copyrighted 50 years after publication, so it entered the public domain in Canada on 17 Sept. 1996. However, works on Commons must also be in the public domain in the United States, and US copyright law states that for a work to be in the public domain, it has to have entered the public domain in its home country prior to 1 January 1996. Unfortunately, this photograph missed the deadline by a few months. InverseHypercube 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the thousands of files that use this license, because the image was taken before 1949, are using incorrect licensing? 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- All the ones that were published before 1946 are fine. InverseHypercube 03:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the thousands of files that use this license, because the image was taken before 1949, are using incorrect licensing? 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Canadian copyright law before 1999 stated that a work was copyrighted 50 years after creation, so any pre-1949 Canadian photograph is public domain and the {{PD-Canada}} tag properly applies. The problem, as InverseHypercube has correctly identified, is that works must also be PD in the United States. Under the URAA, works that were public domain in Canada prior to the URAA date (January 1, 1996) are public domain in the U.S. - otherwise, we must look to U.S. copyright rules. Since this image was not public domain in Canada on January 1, 1996, we have a problem. However, such images are not typically being deleted on the Commons at the moment, unless there is some other reason to doubt the public domain status. There is some legal dispute as to the status of such images in the U.S., and there is a bit of a policy dispute here on the Commons. At this time, such images are being tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until such issues are resolved one way or the other. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you. I wasn't aware that these were not supposed to be deleted. InverseHypercube 23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's not that they are not supposed to be deleted, but rather that they generally are not being deleted for the time being. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Do you think I should add a note in Template:PD-Canada advising people not to upload if the image was made in or after 1946? InverseHypercube 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, PD-Canada is being updated anyway, but the template should deal with copyright in Canada. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to be so abrupt. There are so many rules and caveats, and URAA is just one of them. What we should do is have a page of easy-to-follow copyright guidelines for Canadian images, and perhaps put a link to that in the template. It underlines the need to have some sort of Village Pump-type space for Canadian contributors to the Commons, where we can share this kind of information. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, PD-Canada is being updated anyway, but the template should deal with copyright in Canada. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Do you think I should add a note in Template:PD-Canada advising people not to upload if the image was made in or after 1946? InverseHypercube 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's not that they are not supposed to be deleted, but rather that they generally are not being deleted for the time being. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Skeezix. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Renominating. We're not keeping images that are copyrighted under the URAA anymore. This image was copyrighted until 1997, so it was copyrighted on the 1996 URAA date in Canada, and will be copyrighted in the US until 2042. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Copyright violation. Not PD in US. The photo was taken in 1959, not 1950 as the description page. [3] MtBell (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep China PD is 50 years, right? It's been over 50 years since 1959. Wknight94 talk 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, it might be PD in China but Commons is a US site and it has to be PD in the US as well, which it isn't (see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Commons is an international collaboration. If the copyright fundamentalists really want to push the URAA here, Commons should move to a country with copyright laws that are more in tune with the rest of the world. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - let's not worry about URAA absurdities. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The image will not be in the public domain in the US until at least 2054.--Rockfang (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Not-PD-US-URAA is not a valid reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. Not-PD-US-URAA is very much a valid reason for deletion, as the innumerable recent deletions in Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted show. Photos in China are copyrighted for 50 years after creation. If this photo was created in 1946 or later, as seems likely from the description which only mentions the dates 1959 and 1950, then it was copyrighted on the URAA date in 1996 in China and so is copyrighted in the US until 2055. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Files in Category:Arco olimpico di Torino
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Hugh Dutton (living people) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Arco olimpico di Torino
[edit]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 Italy.
- File:Arco Olimpico - panoramio.jpg
- File:Arco olimpico 2018.jpg
- File:Arco Olimpico @ Passerella Olimpica @ Lingotto @ Turin (49056932786).jpg
- File:Arco olimpico di Torino.jpg
- File:Great view!! (11203418515).jpg
- File:L'Arco Olimpico - panoramio.jpg
- File:L'Arco Olimpico - Torino 12-2006 - panoramio.jpg
- File:La passerelle du village olympique (Turin) (2875111100).jpg
- File:Le village olympique (Turin) (2874282275).jpg
- File:Мост в торговый центр через жд пути.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. That said, it might be below the threshold of originality, but who knows. I'm not an expert in arches and I'm leaning towards it being original enough to be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kay Fisker
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Kay Fisker (died 21 June 1965) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Danish Academy in Rome - library.jpg
- File:Danish Academy, Rome.jpg
- File:Danske Institut i Rom.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo ENI (Rome)
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Bacigalupo, Finzi, Nova, Ratti is too recent (1962) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:ENI.jpg
- File:Infrared Photography ENI Palace Rome.jpg
- File:Palazzo Eni.jpg
- File:Palazzo ENI.jpg
- File:Roma EUR Palazzo uffici ENI.jpg
- File:Roma Palazzo ENI EUR.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:PalaLottomatica
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Marcello Piacentini (died 1960) and Pier Luigi Nervi (died 1979) is too recent (1960) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Palaeur.jpg
- File:Palalottomatica notturna.jpg
- File:Roma - EUR - Palalottomatica da Laghetto.JPG
- File:Roma - PalaLottomatica - Virtus Roma-Olimpia Milano 2008-09.jpg
- File:Roma Cascate Laghetto EUR Palazzo dello Sport.jpg
- File:Roma EUR Palazzo dello Sport da viale America.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kept File:Roma - PalaLottomatica - Virtus Roma-Olimpia Milano 2008-09.jpg because is a DM. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all but I am
Neutral for File:Roma - PalaLottomatica - Virtus Roma-Olimpia Milano 2008-09.jpg.--Dega180 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but what does "DM" means?--Dega180 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC) DM è l'abbreviazione di De minimis. Raoli ✉ (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one per discussion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Adalberto Libera
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Adalberto Libera (died 1963) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:EURRoma10.jpg
- File:Mussolini's Italy Conference Centre, Rome - 2790.jpg
- File:Palazzo Regione Trento Italia.JPG
- File:Q05 - piazza Bologna la posta 1000729.JPG
- File:Villa Malaparte 3.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two files undeleted, as per [4]. Yann (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two more more files undeleted per separate UDR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fiera di Roma
[edit]Sorry, but this building is too recent (2006) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Roma Tiburtina train station
[edit]Sorry, but this building of ABDR Architetti Associati and Paolo Desideri is too recent (2011) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Galleria Tiburtina 01.JPG
- File:Galleria Tiburtina 02.JPG
- File:Roma Tiburtina stazione Cavour 1024x768.jpg
- File:Roma Tiburtina stazione Cavour 640x480.jpg
- File:Roma Tiburtina stazione Cavour 800x600.jpg
- File:Roma, Stazione di Roma Tiburtina - veduta esterna 12-12-11.jpg
- File:Roma, Stazione di Roma Tiburtina - veduta della galleria-ponte 12-12-11.jpg
- File:StazioneTiburtina.jpg
- File:Tiburtina1.JPG
- File:Tiburtina2.JPG
- File:Tiburtina3.JPG
- File:Tiburtina4.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this building of Odile Decq (living people) is too recent (2010) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Zaha Hadid (living people) is too recent (2010) and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg
- File:MAXXI - Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo.jpg
- File:MAXXI 1499.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1501.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1502.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1504.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1505.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1506.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1508.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1510.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1511.JPG
- File:Maxxi interni.jpg
- File:MAXXI photo-10.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-2.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-3.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-4.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-5.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-7.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-8.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]The building was completed in 2010 by architect Zaha Hadid (1950–2016). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright terms of Italy lasted for 70 years, and the images can be undeleted in 2087.
- File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Rome 31.jpg
- File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Rome 32.jpg
- File:Calamita gravitazionale Gino de Dominicis.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 01.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 02.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 03.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 05.jpg
- File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG
- File:MAXXI.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete See also Commons:Deletion requests/Internal of MAXXI, where Ruthven deleted a number of photos but also decided to keep some (for reasons I respectfully disagree with). --Gnom (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In this case, the photos also represent recent artworks and some representative architectural element of the museum. --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Zaha Hadid died in 2016
- File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg
- File:MAXXI (2017) Rome 31.jpg
- File:MAXXI (2017) Rome 32.jpg
- File:MAXXI - Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 01.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 02.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 03.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 05.jpg
- File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG
- File:MAXXI.jpg
- File:MAXXI0.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Some files have already been deleted then undeleted (e.g. File talk:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg). This kind of "blind" DR is counterproductive. --Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The deprecated discussion is available here (Started by User:JWilz12345. As new evidence about the FoP issue appears, it is necessary to re-open the discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruthven the "dead architects" exception has been voided after concerns from other users that the parliamentary pronouncement did not directly mention works by deceased authors, see COM:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/08#Question on the so-called de facto Italian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Re: undeleted then nominated again, per an admin here, there is no official policy that only limits deletion of a file once. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Right. In any case, some of these files can be kept:
- Keep File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg (de minimis)
- Keep File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG (de minimis)
- Keep File:MAXXI.jpg (de minimis, the old building is centered in the frame)
- Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't see a case for de minimis here. Gnom (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Gnom, even though the image only contains part of building, it still covers a rather large area of the image. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I don't see a case for DM. --Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ponte della Musica
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Kit Powell-Williams Architects is too recent (2011) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:2012-02-17 Ponte della Musica da Piazza Gentile da Fabriano.jpg
- File:2012-02-17 Ponte della Musica lato Della Vittoria.jpg
- File:2012-02-17 Ponte della Musica lato Flaminio.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ponte della Musica
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Italy. The bridge was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed.
- File:Bridge of music.JPG
- File:Bridge of the Music 2.jpg
- File:Bridge of the Music.jpg
- File:Confluenzatevereaniene-6dic2018-visureacatastali22.jpg
- File:Il ponte della Musica.jpg
- File:Il Ponte della Musica.jpg
- File:Ombre sul Ponte Armando Trovajoli.jpg
- File:P musica.jpg
- File:Ponte Della Musica (64966773).jpeg
- File:Ponte della musica 01.jpg
- File:Ponte della musica 02.jpg
- File:Ponte della musica 04.jpg
- File:Ponte della musica 05.jpg
- File:Ponte della musica 06.jpg
- File:Ponte della Musica 2.jpg
- File:Ponte Della Musica Roma.jpg
- File:Ponte Della Musica ^1 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ponte Della Musica ^2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ponte della Musica.jpg
- File:Roma 2019 041.jpg
- File:Steel life.jpg
- File:Tramonto dal Ponte della Musica - Roma.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except File:Ponte della musica 06.jpg. This can not realistically be manipulated in any way that would infringe on the architect's copyright. ƏXPLICIT 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo della Confindustria
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Vincenzo Monaco (died in 1969) and Pierluigi Spadolini (died in 2000) is too recent (1973) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Giovanni Michelucci
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Cappella Sacrario ai Caduti di Kindu, Pisa.JPG
- File:Chiesa dei Santi Pietro e Girolamo.jpg
- File:Chiesa di Santa Rosa, Livorno.jpg
- File:Cimitero di trespiano 18, cappella bracco.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- What's the original/protectable artwork in images 2 and 3 ?!? --Denniss (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- A church and a building. You do not see the originality? --Raoli ✉ (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the image #2. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- A church and a building. You do not see the originality? --Raoli ✉ (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Banca monte paschi colle 1.jpg
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 01.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 02.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 03.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 04.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 05.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 06.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 07.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 08.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 09.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 10.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 11.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 12.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 13.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 14.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa 15.JPG
- File:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Autostrada del Sole church
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 01.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 02.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 03.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 04.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 05.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 06.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 07.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 08.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 09.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 10.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 11.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 12.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 13.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 14.JPG
- File:Autostrada del Sole church, inside 15.JPG
- File:Chiaesaautostrada202.jpg
- File:Chiesa auotdtrada corridoio.jpg
- File:CHIESA AUTOSTRADA.jpg
- File:Chiesa dell'autostrada di notte 01.JPG
- File:Chiesa dell'autostrada di notte 02.JPG
- File:Chiesaautostrada fianco.jpg
- File:Chiesaautostradainterno1.jpg
- File:Chiesadell'autostrada2007.jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista 1.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista 3.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista 4.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista 6.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista porta1.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista porta2.JPG
- File:San Giovanni Battista porta3.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete, the last three files are not a FoP cases but they are works of art under copyright.--Dega180 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if you think about it, no-FOP cases and artwork under copyright are the same thing. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Cassa risparmio firenze, esterno.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, 01.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, 02.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, 03.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, 04.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, 05.JPG
- File:Sede Cassa di Risparmio di firenze, P.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Florence Station Apr 2008.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 1.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 10.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 11.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 12.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 13.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 14.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 15.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 16.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 18.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 2.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 20.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 24.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 25.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 26.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 27.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 3.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 4.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 5.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 6.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 8.JPG
- File:Interior of Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station 9.JPG
- File:Station Florence.jpg
- File:Stazione Santa Maria Novella, interno 33.JPG
- File:Stazione smn atrio.JPG
- File:Stazione smn interno 1.JPG
- File:Stazione smn interno 2.JPG
- File:Stazione smn interno 3.JPG
- File:Stazione smn interno biglietteria 1.JPG
- File:Stazione smn interno biglietteria 2.JPG
- File:Stazione smn, biglietteria 01.JPG
- File:Stazione smn, biglietteria 02.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ponte alle Grazie
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sasso Pisano
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Chiesa Arch. Michelucci - Lagoni del Sasso Pisano.jpg
- File:Chiesa Arch. Michelucci Lagoni di Sasso Pisano.jpg
- File:Porta ingresso chiesa Arch. Michelucci a Sasso Pisano.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casa in via dello Sprone
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Casa in via dello sprone 01.JPG
- File:Casa in via dello sprone 02.JPG
- File:Casa in via dello sprone 04.JPG
- File:Casa in via dello sprone 05.JPG
- File:Casa in via dello sprone, ext..JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral; this building can be considered an original work of art?--Dega180 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- By the creator, yes. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It does not have to be an original work of art, but simply of architecture. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Osteria del Gambero Rosso
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 01.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 02.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 03.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 04.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 05.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 06.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 07.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 08.JPG
- File:Osteria del gambero rosso 09.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete, is the file: File:Osteria del gambero rosso, insegna.JPG an artwork under copyright? I think that we can delete also that one.--Dega180 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know. The problem is that I don't find the information about the author. Probably it is to be deleted too. Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but it.wiki says that the first project of Osteria del Gambero Rosso was created in 1959, i think that the artwork was not created before 1943 (2013 - 70 years).--Dega180 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Off topic
[edit]Ma sì, cancelliamo tutto... chi cazzo se ne frega... i peggiori nemici di wikipedia sono i wikipediani, non c'è niente da fare! --Sailko (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- No i peggiori nemici di wikipedia sono le leggi ante-guerra (1941), e i politici che fanno tutto fuorché cose utili.--Dega180 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Non mi risulta che nessun politico abbia protestato per far applicare leggi anteguerra... i cacaspilli wikipediani invece sì, sempre, non gliene sfugge una. Cmq trovo desolante che si sia iniziato a cancellare proprio partendo da Michelucci, quando era stato indicato come si potesse facilmente contattare la Fondazione Michelucci di Fiesole per ottenere eventualmente una deroga. Ci sono già stati contatti da parte di wikipediani... io in questo periodo sto facendo anche troppo per i progetti wikipedia e non posso veramente occuparmene. Sarebbe però stato logico se si fosse almeno fatto un tentativo. Qui ci sono tutti i recapiti. Inoltre si era detto di provare a smuovere le acque, magari dopo le elezioni. Ma invece no, si mette tutto in cancellazione e subito, che fretta c'era? Avete idea della fatica che possa essere costata a scattare/raccogliere/sistemare/ritoccare/caricare/categorizzare/linkare tutte queste immagini? Probabilmente no, sennò non andreste a letto così tranquilli la sera, non senza aver almeno provato ogni strada. --Sailko (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- La discussione su wikipedia è iniziata il 5 dicembre 2012, più di un mese fa, non si è mai detto che le foto non sarebbero state cancellate prima delle elezioni, le regole di commons parlano chiaro. Anche a me, ancora prima che Raoli tirasse fuori il problema, sono state cancellate delle foto perché in Italia non c'è la libertà di panorama, per le quali ho messo il mio impegno, e questo è capitato sicuramente anche ad altri utenti, d'altra parte o le teniamo tutte violando la legge italiana sul copyright, e il regolamento di commons, oppure l'unica alternativa è cancellarle tutte.--Dega180 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sailko la pena è pagare fino a 15.000 € e 3 anni di carcere senza autorizzazione. Ti avevo scritto per la discussione in modo che restassi informato. Come dispiace a te dispaice pure a me ma le cancellazioni vanno fatte. Eventualmente si potranno recuperare i file. La cosa mi lascia scontentato e scioccato ma ti scongiuro di non prendertela con chi colpa non ne ha. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Non mi pareva una questione di irreprensibile urgenza, tenedo conto che le immagini sono online da due, tre, quattro anni e nessuno si è ancora mai lamentato. Avrei piuttosto aspettato un mese in più e provato a contattare le Fondazioni, oppure avrei aspettato che, a governo nuovo, fosse stato provato a fare un po' di pressione sulle istituzioni. Credo che il momento scelto per portare avanti questa campagna non potesse essere peggiore e mi fa sospettare che dietro ci sia la semplice volontà di fare piazza pulita, magari per una qualche ripicca personale nei confronti del progetto. Caro Raoli, non è così semplice, tu puoi anche ripristinare le immagini dopo, ma quando il Delinker è già passato andranno rimesse su wikipedia una per una, per cui il danno ci sarà comunque e sarà grave. --Sailko (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sailko purtroppo (o per fortuna) su wikipedia decide chi partecipa alle discussioni, noi abbiamo fatto una discussione lunga più di un mese a riguardo che è stata postata due volte al Bar, se volevi dire la tua nessuno te lo impediva. Scusa ma non ci si può astenere e poi lamentarsi della decisione presa, chi si astiene lascia che decidano gli altri.--Dega180 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sailko avevo proposto più volte di utilizzare una immagine di rimpiazzo proprio per ovviare al problema del delinker, cioè di una immagine di sensibilizzazione dell'opinione pubblica che avrebbe permesso di mantenere nome file e descrizione ma pochi erano intervenuti a suo favore perchè ci stava qualcuno, da strozzare per me, che reputava che ció fosse fare politica su wikipedia, quindi nessuno finora ha più risollevato la questione. Tu ora mi devi quindi spiegare cosa vuoi. Ho fatto sforzi inimmaginabili e li sto tuttora facendo ma se non partecipi che ci possiamo fare noi. Risulta offensione per chi anche come Dega ha partecipato alla discussione sentirsi dire che non abbiamo agito correttamente. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sailko purtroppo (o per fortuna) su wikipedia decide chi partecipa alle discussioni, noi abbiamo fatto una discussione lunga più di un mese a riguardo che è stata postata due volte al Bar, se volevi dire la tua nessuno te lo impediva. Scusa ma non ci si può astenere e poi lamentarsi della decisione presa, chi si astiene lascia che decidano gli altri.--Dega180 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Non mi pareva una questione di irreprensibile urgenza, tenedo conto che le immagini sono online da due, tre, quattro anni e nessuno si è ancora mai lamentato. Avrei piuttosto aspettato un mese in più e provato a contattare le Fondazioni, oppure avrei aspettato che, a governo nuovo, fosse stato provato a fare un po' di pressione sulle istituzioni. Credo che il momento scelto per portare avanti questa campagna non potesse essere peggiore e mi fa sospettare che dietro ci sia la semplice volontà di fare piazza pulita, magari per una qualche ripicca personale nei confronti del progetto. Caro Raoli, non è così semplice, tu puoi anche ripristinare le immagini dopo, ma quando il Delinker è già passato andranno rimesse su wikipedia una per una, per cui il danno ci sarà comunque e sarà grave. --Sailko (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sailko la pena è pagare fino a 15.000 € e 3 anni di carcere senza autorizzazione. Ti avevo scritto per la discussione in modo che restassi informato. Come dispiace a te dispaice pure a me ma le cancellazioni vanno fatte. Eventualmente si potranno recuperare i file. La cosa mi lascia scontentato e scioccato ma ti scongiuro di non prendertela con chi colpa non ne ha. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- La discussione su wikipedia è iniziata il 5 dicembre 2012, più di un mese fa, non si è mai detto che le foto non sarebbero state cancellate prima delle elezioni, le regole di commons parlano chiaro. Anche a me, ancora prima che Raoli tirasse fuori il problema, sono state cancellate delle foto perché in Italia non c'è la libertà di panorama, per le quali ho messo il mio impegno, e questo è capitato sicuramente anche ad altri utenti, d'altra parte o le teniamo tutte violando la legge italiana sul copyright, e il regolamento di commons, oppure l'unica alternativa è cancellarle tutte.--Dega180 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Non mi risulta che nessun politico abbia protestato per far applicare leggi anteguerra... i cacaspilli wikipediani invece sì, sempre, non gliene sfugge una. Cmq trovo desolante che si sia iniziato a cancellare proprio partendo da Michelucci, quando era stato indicato come si potesse facilmente contattare la Fondazione Michelucci di Fiesole per ottenere eventualmente una deroga. Ci sono già stati contatti da parte di wikipediani... io in questo periodo sto facendo anche troppo per i progetti wikipedia e non posso veramente occuparmene. Sarebbe però stato logico se si fosse almeno fatto un tentativo. Qui ci sono tutti i recapiti. Inoltre si era detto di provare a smuovere le acque, magari dopo le elezioni. Ma invece no, si mette tutto in cancellazione e subito, che fretta c'era? Avete idea della fatica che possa essere costata a scattare/raccogliere/sistemare/ritoccare/caricare/categorizzare/linkare tutte queste immagini? Probabilmente no, sennò non andreste a letto così tranquilli la sera, non senza aver almeno provato ogni strada. --Sailko (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Giovanni Michelucci (died 31 December 1990) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Poste di via pietrapiana 02.JPG
- File:Poste di via pietrapiana, retro 01.JPG
- File:Poste di via pietrapiana, retro 02.JPG
- File:Sede della Direzione provinciale delle Poste e Telegrafi firenze 11.JPG
- File:Sede della Direzione provinciale delle Poste e Telegrafi firenze 12.JPG
- File:Sede della Direzione provinciale delle Poste e Telegrafi firenze 13.JPG
- File:Sede della Direzione provinciale delle Poste e Telegrafi firenze 14.JPG
- File:Sede della Direzione provinciale delle Poste e Telegrafi firenze.JPG
- File:Villa il roseto, plastico delle poste di via pietrapiana.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by He's so unusual (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP (all uploads of He's so unusual (talk · contribs) = copyvios/problematic).
Gunnex (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
All images by User:M.rafiei56
[edit]- M.rafiei56 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
:{{S.john.soars}}
All images by M.rafiei56 are copyright violation. They've been uploaded to fa.wikipedia before and deleted due to copyvio.
- File:Mozhdeh Lavasani IvanShams.JPG -> another version of File:Mozhdeh Lavasani.jpg
- File:Mojdeh Lavasani2.jpg -> fa:File:Mozhdeh Lavasani2.jpeg
- File:Mojdeh Lavasani3.jpg -> fa:File:Mozhdeh Lavasani3.jpeg
- File:Mozhdeh Lavasani.jpg -> fa:File:Mozhdeh Lavasani.jpeg
He have not yet answered why these images belongs to him, and to avoid this problem user uploaded images to his flickr account and moved files from there and used and his/her meatpuppet/sock puppet in an edit war to keep them. -- Meisam (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS ticket # 2012121210011358 shows these images do not belong to him and he got them from some one else without her agreement of license. -- Meisam (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- سلام. اول از همه بگم که کاربرِ اس.جان.سوارز من نیستم. کسیه که برای مقالهی مژده لواسانی عکسهای مصداقِ مواردِ نقضِ حقِ تکثیر گذاشته بود و من بهش تذکر دادم و اون در صفحهی من به من اهانت کرد و یه نفر فحشاشو پاک کرد. من ایجادکنندهی مقالهی مژده لواسانی هستم. این عکسها هم متعلق به خودمه و فقط چون اوایلِ کارم به علت واردنبودن و آشنانبودن با قوانین ویکیپدیا از عکسهای اینترنتی برای مقاله استفاده کردم و چندباری درفش کاویانی اونها رو پاک کرد و من با اصرار دوباره گذاشتمشون (فکر میکردم راهِ درست اینه!) درفش روم حسّاس شد و بعد از اون هروقت هرعکسی که بارگذاری کردم رو برچسب زد یا حذف کرد. اگر ویکیپدیای فارسی بود که مستقیم خودش بیهیچ تذکری حذف میکرد، اگر ویکیانبار هم بود چون خودش نمیتونست، به محضِ فهمیدن یه کاربرِ مدیرِ ویکیانبار رو پیدا میکرد و از اون میخواست که اینکارو بکنه. به هر صورت من گمان میکنم روی من حسّاسیتی بوجود اومده که یه مقدارش حق بوده اما بیش از اون دیگه بیانصافیه و داره ظلم میشه در حقم. این عکسها مالِ خودمه و نظیرش رو در هیچ کجای اینترنت نمیتونید پیدا کنید. اینها فقط و فقط مالِ خودمه. هم تاریخِ گرفتنِ عکسها و مکانهای گرفتنشون رو نوشتم، هم متادیتا (اگزیفِ) اونها موجوده و میتونید مطابقت بدید. امیدوارم نسبت به همدیگه توی ویکیپدیای فارسی حسنِ ظن داشته باشیم و بدونیم که داریم به ارتقاء و گسترش یک دانشنامهی آزاد کمک میکنیم و حسابهای شخصی رو بذاریم کنار. نه من دنبالِ اهداف و منافعِ شخصیِ خودم هستم، نه میدونم که درفشِ کاویانی و شما و بقیه. فقط خوبه که بههم اعتماد داشته باشیم و کمک کنیم به همدیگه. من اگر قرار بود دنبالِ به هر قیمتی به اهدافم رسیدن باشم، هیچوقت از یه کاربرِ مبتدیتر از خودم موردِ اهانت قرار نمیگرفتم. امیدوارم این قصه یه پایانی داشته باشه بالاخره. ممنون که جای بحث رو باز گذاشتید. به سابقهی این پروندهها در صفحهی بحثِ من نگاه بکنید با یه کاربرِ خارجی. اون کاربر از طرفِ درفش مأمور شده بود برای پاککردنِ پرونده و من یهکم باهاش بحث کردم که بعد سرش شلوغ شد و سهتا کاربرِ ایرانی رو معرفی کرد و من دیگه با اونها بحث نکردم و اون کاربرِ خارجی تاریخچهی بحث رو توی صفحهی بحثِ من کپی کرد.M.rafiei56 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- شما در ایمیلی که برای info-fa@wikimedia.org فرستادهاید، نوشتهاید که تصاویر متعلق به شما نیستند و آنها را از فرد دیگری گرفتهاید و در اینجا ادعا میکنید که تصاویر مال خودتان است. به کدامشان باید (به قول خودتان) اعتماد کنیم؟-- Meisam (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- سلام. اول از همه بگم که کاربرِ اس.جان.سوارز من نیستم. کسیه که برای مقالهی مژده لواسانی عکسهای مصداقِ مواردِ نقضِ حقِ تکثیر گذاشته بود و من بهش تذکر دادم و اون در صفحهی من به من اهانت کرد و یه نفر فحشاشو پاک کرد. من ایجادکنندهی مقالهی مژده لواسانی هستم. این عکسها هم متعلق به خودمه و فقط چون اوایلِ کارم به علت واردنبودن و آشنانبودن با قوانین ویکیپدیا از عکسهای اینترنتی برای مقاله استفاده کردم و چندباری درفش کاویانی اونها رو پاک کرد و من با اصرار دوباره گذاشتمشون (فکر میکردم راهِ درست اینه!) درفش روم حسّاس شد و بعد از اون هروقت هرعکسی که بارگذاری کردم رو برچسب زد یا حذف کرد. اگر ویکیپدیای فارسی بود که مستقیم خودش بیهیچ تذکری حذف میکرد، اگر ویکیانبار هم بود چون خودش نمیتونست، به محضِ فهمیدن یه کاربرِ مدیرِ ویکیانبار رو پیدا میکرد و از اون میخواست که اینکارو بکنه. به هر صورت من گمان میکنم روی من حسّاسیتی بوجود اومده که یه مقدارش حق بوده اما بیش از اون دیگه بیانصافیه و داره ظلم میشه در حقم. این عکسها مالِ خودمه و نظیرش رو در هیچ کجای اینترنت نمیتونید پیدا کنید. اینها فقط و فقط مالِ خودمه. هم تاریخِ گرفتنِ عکسها و مکانهای گرفتنشون رو نوشتم، هم متادیتا (اگزیفِ) اونها موجوده و میتونید مطابقت بدید. امیدوارم نسبت به همدیگه توی ویکیپدیای فارسی حسنِ ظن داشته باشیم و بدونیم که داریم به ارتقاء و گسترش یک دانشنامهی آزاد کمک میکنیم و حسابهای شخصی رو بذاریم کنار. نه من دنبالِ اهداف و منافعِ شخصیِ خودم هستم، نه میدونم که درفشِ کاویانی و شما و بقیه. فقط خوبه که بههم اعتماد داشته باشیم و کمک کنیم به همدیگه. من اگر قرار بود دنبالِ به هر قیمتی به اهدافم رسیدن باشم، هیچوقت از یه کاربرِ مبتدیتر از خودم موردِ اهانت قرار نمیگرفتم. امیدوارم این قصه یه پایانی داشته باشه بالاخره. ممنون که جای بحث رو باز گذاشتید. به سابقهی این پروندهها در صفحهی بحثِ من نگاه بکنید با یه کاربرِ خارجی. اون کاربر از طرفِ درفش مأمور شده بود برای پاککردنِ پرونده و من یهکم باهاش بحث کردم که بعد سرش شلوغ شد و سهتا کاربرِ ایرانی رو معرفی کرد و من دیگه با اونها بحث نکردم و اون کاربرِ خارجی تاریخچهی بحث رو توی صفحهی بحثِ من کپی کرد.M.rafiei56 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- CommentThe user was not owner of the files copyright. (s)he has been informed about the standard procedure to get the permission and original photo to upload. All coversations are archvied in the OTRS system with the same ticket number: #2012121210011358
- One of the admins close this request please. -- Meisam (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in France. Please upload the image to Wikipedia which allow the use of such images (e.g. the German speaking Wikipedia) before deletion. ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- What is the interference? This is 'not a panorama in the proper meaning of the word… By the was… in this case you'd have to delete the most of the panoramas here in Commons! --CherryX (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, indeed. I'm with you CherryX. It's ridiculous how out of a sudden all these people come out of their caves to celebrate a deletion spree across the Wikis without "FOP".
I say: KEEP! Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Si tacuisses ... Erst lesen bzw. sich informieren, dann nachdenken, dann hier kommentieren.- Basics: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France und absolute basics: Commons:Panoramafreiheit. --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Erstmal vom hohen Wikiross herabsteigen, dann auf Augenhöhe weiter reden. Danke. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some more images of the same uploader that unfortunately can not stay on Commons but can be uploaded e.g. to the German speaking Wikipedia:
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Northern side (1).jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Northern side (2).jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Southern side.jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Western side.jpg
--ALE! ¿…? 13:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
So here are some more: Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg. --CherryX (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any difference in the objects if they are visible on a panorama (stitched to get more pixel) or a single-shot. --CherryX (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.182.144 09:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Closed early -- this is the same image that was deleted after the last DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was not me who transferred it from the Germen Wikipedia despite the no commons-information. --CherryX (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP France, there is no FoP in France. The building was constructed in 1995, therefore it is not in the public domain. The image focuses solely on the non-free architectural work, so it can not be kept. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
no trustworthy uploads ("fan uploads"), photos most likely copyright violations, partly photographed from originals (File:Ain_Club_UAE.jpg – with flash reflection was already deleted), contains press photos like File:Doublé 2009.jpg and several team photos (some over 30 years old). Mostly no EXIF data (if available: Canon EOS 7D, Sony DSC-W35 and UMAX scanner).
- File:Final coupe de Tunisie.jpg
- File:Championnat Arabe Damas 1980Médaille d'Or Equipe de Tunisie.jpg
- File:Equipe National 1979.jpg
- File:Equipe National 1981.jpg
- File:Doublé 2009.jpg
- File:Club Sportif Sfaxien Junior 1994.jpg
- File:Final coupe de Tunise 2009.jpg
- File:Ahly Djeddah.jpg
- File:Qadsia Club 1988.jpg
- File:USTS 2004.jpg
- File:Qadsia sporting club 2012.jpg
- File:Club sportif sfaxien.jpg
- File:Hamadi Kerkeni.JPG
- File:CSS 2009.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The image is not under Crown copyright, created sometimes in 1954 to 1956 and Canadian PD works must be older than 1949. Not PD in US either as such. feydey (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Canadian photographs need not necessarily be older than 1949 to be public domain - the 50 years p.m.a. rule also applies. However, here we do not know the author of the photograph, so it is impossible to know if the image is public domain in Canada or not. Not sure what crown copyright has to do with this. An additional problem is its status in the U.S. - as a post 1945 image, it isn't treated as PD in the States per URAA, and without knowing the author, we have to assume that it is still copyrighted.
I originally uploaded this image to Wikipedia some time ago, scanning it from a book published in 2000 by the Ottawa Citizen - I don't have it handy at the moment, but it was a compilation of historic photos of Ottawa (as it was one of my first uploads, I wasn't bright enough to reference the book in the image description - although I did manage to mention the archival source). The book, IIRC, dated the photograph to the early 1940s (which, in retrospect, was incorrect). Since then, an eagle-eyed editor has noticed that the film advertised on the marquee in the image dates to the 1950s (as do the models of vehicles in the images). As a 1950s Canadian image with an unknown author, we don't know if it was public domain in Canada on the URAA date (January 1, 1996), and therefore need to presume that it is still copyrighted in the U.S. In light of the information about the movie and the vehicles, I would support the proposed deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Canadian photographs need not necessarily be older than 1949 to be public domain - the 50 years p.m.a. rule also applies. However, here we do not know the author of the photograph, so it is impossible to know if the image is public domain in Canada or not. Not sure what crown copyright has to do with this. An additional problem is its status in the U.S. - as a post 1945 image, it isn't treated as PD in the States per URAA, and without knowing the author, we have to assume that it is still copyrighted.
- I was the one who added the most recent deletion request. Not sure why my name is not associated to it, but that's not really important...just curious. Anyways, I work down the hall from the Ottawa Archives, from which that photo was extracted. They have it, in their records, as 1940. I worked with a woman from there, and she agrees that it is much later than 1940 and she will investigate. She doesn't believe there is a photographer's name associated to it, so am not sure how this affects copyright laws. Ccrashh (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the Ottawa Archives has misdated it explains why the Ottawa Citizen did the same. If the photo truly were from 1940, the lack of photographer information would not be an issue. But since the Cdn. copyright status of post-1948 images is based on the death of the author, plus 50 years, we really need to know the photographer (and date of death, assuming there is one) to be comfortable that the image is PD in Canada. In the end, however, it doesn't matter much because it also needs to be PD in the U.S. to be hosted on the Commons, and would therefore need to be a pre-1946 image to have any shot at public domain status in the States. Basically, the fact that we now know that the images dates to 1954-6 means that it no longer qualifies as PD. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ccrashh, I think you may have nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia, not here. I deleted your insertion of your name in the author field on the image description page -- that pertains to the photographer who took the photo, not the person who nominated it for deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. That explains it :) New to this Wikipedia Commons thing. Thanks. Ccrashh (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ccrashh, I think you may have nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia, not here. I deleted your insertion of your name in the author field on the image description page -- that pertains to the photographer who took the photo, not the person who nominated it for deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the Ottawa Archives has misdated it explains why the Ottawa Citizen did the same. If the photo truly were from 1940, the lack of photographer information would not be an issue. But since the Cdn. copyright status of post-1948 images is based on the death of the author, plus 50 years, we really need to know the photographer (and date of death, assuming there is one) to be comfortable that the image is PD in Canada. In the end, however, it doesn't matter much because it also needs to be PD in the U.S. to be hosted on the Commons, and would therefore need to be a pre-1946 image to have any shot at public domain status in the States. Basically, the fact that we now know that the images dates to 1954-6 means that it no longer qualifies as PD. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The first premise of this discussion is incorrect. The Copyright Act provides that "where the identity of the author of a work is unknown, copyright in the work shall subsist for a term consisting of the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. Therefore, to come within the public domain, anonymous Canadian works or photographic works would need only be older than 1958, not 1949, as stated.
The Copyright Act also provides that "where the owner [of a photograph] is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years.
"Black Pirates", the movie shown playing at the theatre in the photograph, was apparently first distributed in 1954. We can assume this photo was taken in 1954 or 1955.
In either case, assuming that the photograph had been published on or about 1954, the photograph is now in the public domain. The photograph has already been published in a book by the Ottawa Citizen. Obviously, they either cleared the copyright or made the same assumptions. If the copyright was cleared, it should have been attributed. My understanding is that it was not attributed and so we can assume that the photographer is unknown and that the photograph is now PD.
I don't know what the URAA has to do with this. If the image is PD in Canada, as the place of first publication, it is PD in every Berne signatory, including the US. --canuckIPlawyer 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, CanuckIPLawyer, that I ought to have considered the fact that if the author were truly unknown, as seems to be the case from the post by Ccrashh above, copyright would have expired in Canada in 2004. Not sure that I would place any reliance on the Ottawa Citizen's publication of the image, however, since they appear to have published it under the false assumption it dated to the early 1940s. But for the reasons you have outlined, I am not sure that the Ottawa Citizen is particularly relevant.
As for URAA, I would be delighted if you were correct (fingers crossed). But that is not the position that has been adopted here or on any of the Wikimedia sites (see, for example, this template - {{PD-1996}} - which we use to tag the relevant images). The relevant discussions would be at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights - let me know if you decide to challenge the accepted orthodoxy on the talk page over there.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, CanuckIPLawyer, that I ought to have considered the fact that if the author were truly unknown, as seems to be the case from the post by Ccrashh above, copyright would have expired in Canada in 2004. Not sure that I would place any reliance on the Ottawa Citizen's publication of the image, however, since they appear to have published it under the false assumption it dated to the early 1940s. But for the reasons you have outlined, I am not sure that the Ottawa Citizen is particularly relevant.
- Note: Could anyone find out when the image was first published?. feydey (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, picture from 1954 - 1955 makes it PD in Canada. Kameraad Pjotr 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. The date of this photo has been very precisely determined to be 1954-1955 based on evidence in the image itself. Canadian photos published 1946 or later like this one were in copyright on the 1996 URAA date in Canada, and so it remains copyrighted in the US until 2051. The claims by CanuckIPLawyer in the previous nomination were incorrect - the US does not observe the rule of the shorter term and there are many foreign works in copyright in the US but not elsewhere. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would have to agree. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Mystic Treatises
[edit]- Category:Mystic Treatises
- All subimages; the entire book
The book was published in 1923, so it's not PD in the US, and it was translated by w:de:Arent Jan Wensinck, who died in 1939, so it's not PD in the Netherlands, where it was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15 , 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Published in Amsterdam, the translator has copyright. (Warning: the category with all the .gif files takes forever to load.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment But why the ... did not you notify the uploader of all these files?!!! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because opening that category page and doing the simplest thing takes about 10-15 minutes for me, as it eats up all my memory, and I ran out of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it correct that the copyright of this book anywhere except in the USA expires on January 1, 2010? Sv1xv (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. Columbia, for one, has a life+80 term and no rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, with the exception of a few countries with extreme copyright protection and the USA (not before 2018 due to URAA) it shall be generally free in less than 4 months. Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- With those exceptions, it was already generally free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, with the exception of a few countries with extreme copyright protection and the USA (not before 2018 due to URAA) it shall be generally free in less than 4 months. Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. Columbia, for one, has a life+80 term and no rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per common sense here. Since the translator died in 1939, the work is copyright free in 4 months time. We can surely wait 4 months rather than delete 160 files here I think? --Leoboudv (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- That makes good sense. Let this DR linger in the backlog until January. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- So we host a work that violates US copyright (where the servers are hosted) and it also violates the copyright of its country of origin and we should just sit on it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was one file (or a small number of files) the best course would be to delete it now and then undelete it in four months. But when the work is distributed in a 457 files, it is counterproductive, unless it can be done by a script or a bot. I believe we have no technical option to temporarily hide it from public access, is it correct? (If a paper book publisher wanted to publish it when the copyright expires, he would already have started printing, binding, packaging and distributing the books. He would also set an official release date of January 1, 2010.) Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have started printing the books if he were a Florida-based publisher like Wikimedia is. I'm curious if they would be openly printing or distributing the books even if they were about to be PD, as that's a criminal act under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to resolve the WMF-URAA policy issue, is it? The current discussion is about handling a specific case and we have proposed two options (temporary deletion using some script or leaving the DR open). Sv1xv (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should just follow whatever Commons:Licensing says, which is "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", and take the policy discussion, which needs to change that first, elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- On this specific issue (URAA) the current Commons policy is "wait and see, don't rush to remove media unless asked to", see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I don't know what happens behind the scene but I suspect they act on legal advice. If the courts decide that URAA is constitutional, a solution like hosting some media outside the USA may be implemented. Sv1xv (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that, then edit Commons:Licensing to say that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why should I get involved ? I have no strong personal views on the subject. Sv1xv (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that, then edit Commons:Licensing to say that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- On this specific issue (URAA) the current Commons policy is "wait and see, don't rush to remove media unless asked to", see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I don't know what happens behind the scene but I suspect they act on legal advice. If the courts decide that URAA is constitutional, a solution like hosting some media outside the USA may be implemented. Sv1xv (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should just follow whatever Commons:Licensing says, which is "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", and take the policy discussion, which needs to change that first, elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to resolve the WMF-URAA policy issue, is it? The current discussion is about handling a specific case and we have proposed two options (temporary deletion using some script or leaving the DR open). Sv1xv (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have started printing the books if he were a Florida-based publisher like Wikimedia is. I'm curious if they would be openly printing or distributing the books even if they were about to be PD, as that's a criminal act under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was one file (or a small number of files) the best course would be to delete it now and then undelete it in four months. But when the work is distributed in a 457 files, it is counterproductive, unless it can be done by a script or a bot. I believe we have no technical option to temporarily hide it from public access, is it correct? (If a paper book publisher wanted to publish it when the copyright expires, he would already have started printing, binding, packaging and distributing the books. He would also set an official release date of January 1, 2010.) Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(unident) Sorry, I thought copyright ran out exactly 70 years after death of the author, this would be in a few days... If it is not so: delete it, I will upload the whole sh.. January 1st, 2010. --Moros (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you are willing to upload it again, there is another issue, unrelated to copyright: It would be much better if you could upload it in PNG format instead of GIF. Sv1xv (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've converted all files into the .PNG format and I would upload all files as .PNG files. --Moros (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! Then it is better to delete these ones now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've converted all files into the .PNG format and I would upload all files as .PNG files. --Moros (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per request on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FMystic_Treatises Huib talk 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Mystic Treatises
[edit]- Category:Mystic Treatises
- All subimages; the entire book
- Template:Mystic Treatises, Template:Mystic Treatises Preface
As noted above, this work was first published in the Netherlands by a translator who died in 1939, so it was still in copyright (70 pma retroactive) on the 1996 URAA date. Being published in 1923, it's still in copyright in the United States until 2019. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As per above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khubaiboraizy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Musicvideofan2012 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The images appear to be screenshots of a television programme.
Jespinos (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Images from http://www.portraitbizarre.be/ - There is an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file(s) agreed to license the file(s) under the given license.
ErikvanB (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Currency from Argentina
[edit]- File:Patacon Argentina Bono 1Peso.png
- File:Patacon Argentina Bono 2Peso.png
- File:10 Quebracho Anverso.jpg
- File:10 Quebracho reverso.jpg
According to Commons:Currency#Argentina: No exception for currency in the Argentine Copyright Law. Therefore, general copyright law apply to these bills. As not enough time has passed, it seems unlikely they're in the public domain unless other legislation applies --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- You have to check first with the respective legislation what's the copyright status for these quasimonetary units, and their designs, since legally they are NOT money (they are what is written on them, bearer cheques or bearer bonds, not legally sanctioned currency)
Don't think so. It's the uploader the one that, as usual in commons, has to support his/her license claims. Anyway, I can't see any exception in the Argentine Copyright Law supporting a "free" license for these not-money bills). --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stadion Ljudski vrt
[edit]Built after 1945; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- Keep OTRS recieved --Miha (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Ljudski vrt (east).JPG
- File:Ljudski vrt (Old).JPG
- File:Ljudski vrt 1.JPG
- File:Ljudski vrt 2.JPG
- File:Ljudski vrt 2012.jpg
- File:Ljudski vrt 6.JPG
- File:Maribor v Inter Baku.jpg
- File:NK Maribor - NK Drava, 2009-02-21.jpg
- Keep per COM:DM --Miha (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Eleassar (t/p) 20:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Author of the file granted permission. Ratipok (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: One kept, others deleted. No FOP in Slovenia. FASTILY (TALK) 04:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Would have been extended by the URAA, as the film fell out of copyright only in 2001 Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it is PD-India, as Copyright Act 1911 which was in effect in India until 1958. Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Specific_country_information does not film in the table. Is film covered for India? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- To be kept on Commons it needs to be PD in both India and the US. Since this fell afoul of the URAA, it's not free in the US.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Related discussion at ANI Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD-India_.28continued.29 --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Photos taken 1941 or later are listed as 60 pd at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, and it's very unlikely films are covered for less time than photos (more likely they are covered for longer). This work was almost certainly in copyright on the 1996 URAA date in India, and so had its US copyright restored until 2047 at the earliest. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Dcoetzee. Apparently the file is still under copyright FASTILY (TALK) 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Films enter PD in India 60 years after publication, so is PD in India, and PD in Canada per rule of shorter term. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
This file was initially tagged by ComputerHotline as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This map is already copyrighted, because Michelin always exists. INeverCry 21:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved comments:
I am sorry, but this is a map more than 70 years old. (publishing date 1940) These maps are company work and become PD 70 years after publication. That michelin stil exist is irrelevant. It is not a natural person (author) where you have to wait 70 years after the author dies. On this reasoning you would have to protect works more than 200 years old if the original compagny or organisation stil exist. When an organisation abolished the successors take over the copyrigths, but this is limited to 70 years after publication or 95 years in the US. As this is an French publication about a French region US law should not apply.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, the original reason for deletion was bogus, but this map is probably not out of copyright in the US yet. As it was published in France in 1940, it can not have been free before 2010, potentially much later if it wasn't actually anonymous (the last surviving author counts). The map was published after 1923 and therefore is not automatically out of copyright in the US. It was not free in the country of origin at the URAA cut-off date, therefore its copyright was restored in the US in 1996. As works must be free in the country of origin and the US, this should be deleted. --rimshottalk 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As always, the Wikimedia Foundation is an American organization bound by American law. Since it was in copyright in France in 1996 (on the URAA date), it will be in copyright in the US for 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
We can discuss this individual file and you win on US legal arguments. However there is an enormous amount of similar files and a huge and important part of the commons wil be destroyed. The non-US wikipedia communities will not take this lying down and this wil create a lot of ill-wil. Already there is near total non-cooperation and practicaly nobody wil flag these files. Another solution should be found. Create another non-US file depository legally independant of the WMF. For any files wich have any connection with the US (subject, publisher, author, author living in the US, etc) apply the US rules. The material can be legally published under PD in Europe. Bypas European copyrigth law through US courts? And really what are we risking here? Nearly all files have no commercial value in the US (all materiaal is from people who died at least 70 years ago outside the US). At most we may get a takedown notice and make our excuses. You may as usual cut off any discussion (the law is the law) but the issue wil not go away.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're willing to destroy a huge set of works in the name of Commons policy, but not in the name of the law? (I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a file and discovered I couldn't upload it because of EU law or because it was too hard to figure it under EU law, despite it being legal for me and the WMF.) You can be a criminal on your websites, but Wikimedia shouldn't be hosting stuff it's not legal for it to do so ... and if it's going to do so, let's do it, and stop stressing about EU law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- 70 years since publication for works for hire applies more often if the employer is the initial copyright holder (instead of the employee). In some EU countries, such as the United Kingdom, the employer is the initial copyright holder, whereas in other EU countries, such as Sweden, the employee is the initial copyright holder. I'm not sure what the French law says about works for hire. If the initial copyright holder is the French employee, then it's enough that the employee reveals his identity at any point between 1940 and 2010 for the map to get a copyright term of life+70 years. In either case, it is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication, so Delete. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The EU directive does say that companies must disclose the employee's name on the copies actually distributed to the public -- they cannot simply make the author known. But I'm not sure that bit is written into many of the actual laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The EU directive only says that the employee's name has to be disclosed if the employer is the initial copyright holder - which is not the case in many EU countries, where it is instead the employer who is the initial copyright holder. If the the employee is the initial copyright holder, then the name can be revealed at a later point. --Stefan4 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure this is relevant here. Map making is a collective work (collecting data, updating sheets (this was the non-digital age), redrawing and adding elements, research) of many people with no "creative" single drawer. The data itself is not protected (this is before digital databases), but the styling, format, design, used symbols are protected. This is not a employee who takes a picture or makes other creative work for the compagny.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The EU directive does say that companies must disclose the employee's name on the copies actually distributed to the public -- they cannot simply make the author known. But I'm not sure that bit is written into many of the actual laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- French terms in 1996 were 50pma, not 70. They did however have the wartime extensions, which may have pushed the work to expire a little bit later (8ish years more in this case), before being restored to 70 years from publication by the EU extensions. But I think those wartime extensions may be the deciding factor here. But an anonymous map published in say 1935 or even 1936 should be OK. Yes, these things are incredibly frustrating. Just as is deleting pre-1923 works which are fine in the US but not in the country of origin. Moving stuff out of the US would solve some problems but create others; we'd have to delete lots of stuff we currently have (bye bye PD-Art most likely, for example). It may be a net loss moving somewhere else. But if Michelin issued a DMCA takedown request, we'd have no choice but to delete this file. Even if not a U.S. entity, authors still have full rights in the U.S. and can press a U.S. court case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The map was published and sold in 1940 before the war (may 10 1940 invasion). The declaration of war was in 1940. Technically it is during the war. But from what date does the extention apply? And do you mean 8 or more years added to the fifty or 80 or more years after the publication. As the war lasted 5 years adding 8 years to compensate for lost revenue would be most logical. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- For a work with a known author, the copyright term under the old copyright law is life+50 years. If the work was published before 1948, and if the work didn't enter the public domain before 13 August 1941, then the term was extended by an additional 8 years and 120 days. I don't know whether war extensions also apply to anonymous works. Unlike the Japanese war extensions, the French ones always seem to extend the copyright term for the entire war, even if the work was created during the war. See fr:Prorogations de guerre#Prorogations suite à la Seconde Guerre mondiale. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The map was published and sold in 1940 before the war (may 10 1940 invasion). The declaration of war was in 1940. Technically it is during the war. But from what date does the extention apply? And do you mean 8 or more years added to the fifty or 80 or more years after the publication. As the war lasted 5 years adding 8 years to compensate for lost revenue would be most logical. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The advantage for the WMF of the takedown system, is that the organisation is legally protected if it complies. Only if the takedown notice is challenged is WMF liable if it loses the court case. The WMF could change its policy, to issue a warning on the file that use in the US is protected and can only be used for non-commercial "fair use". This expection should only apply for PD outside the US the on the basis of expiration rules (70 years, or similar) There is already a warning for portraits rigths. With a little bit of flexibility we could keep using the files and avoid a big US /non-US confrontation within the wikipedia community and avoid legal liability for the WMF. The big majority of wikipedia commons contributors is outside the US. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It seems clear that a French work created/published in 1940 was still copyrighted on the URAA restoration date of 1/1/1996 (50 years + 8ish years gets into 1999), so it is subject to US copyright of 95 years from publication, until 1/1/2036. Works on Commons must be free in both the source country and the US. Further, if we know a work is copyrighted in the US, the precautionary principle tells us not to wait for a take-down notice, but rather to delete it ourselves. If you disagree with these policies, work to change them through the appropriate venues, but in the meantime we must follow them. Dura lex sed lex. cmadler (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is a legal case to be made that the work is unpublished in the US and therefore has never been in the PD or copyrigthed in the US: see Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996. The court in Twin Books, however, concluded "publication without a copyright notice in a foreign country did not put the work in the public domain in the United States." According to the court, these foreign publications were in effect "unpublished" in the US, and hence have the same copyright term as unpublished works. The decision has been harshly criticized in Nimmer on Copyright, the leading treatise on copyright, as being incompatible with previous decisions and the intent of Congress when it restored foreign copyrights. The Copyright Office as well ignores the Twin Books decision in its circular on restored copyrights. Nevertheless, the decision is currently applicable in all of the 9th Judicial Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and it may apply in the rest of the country.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unpublished anonymous works are protected for 120 years in the United States. The map is not yet 120 years old. The court ruling you mentioned is typically ignored on Commons anyway, although there's a disclaimer at COM:HIRTLE (search for "In Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ONLY"). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is not an anonymous work but a collective work. (see the start of this discussion). It is linked to the publishing date and not the "authors" death. To avoid confusion there should be an separate tag. I have problems interpreting the 120 years protection for anonymous work. Someone discovering some old document or music piece without a name? And it is only anonymous because the author can not be traced. Al kinds of logical contradictions. I'm glad I never wanted to be a lawyer. The whole point of the URAA ruling is to treat foreign works as if they where properly published in the US. By the logic of this legal ruling the work can not be legally considered to have been published in the US, the US laws are therefore null and void and only the foreign copyrigth laws apply. A very different conclusion.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- The US laws are never null and void. If it is unpublished, then it will get the full force of US copyright for unpublished works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is not an anonymous work but a collective work. (see the start of this discussion). It is linked to the publishing date and not the "authors" death. To avoid confusion there should be an separate tag. I have problems interpreting the 120 years protection for anonymous work. Someone discovering some old document or music piece without a name? And it is only anonymous because the author can not be traced. Al kinds of logical contradictions. I'm glad I never wanted to be a lawyer. The whole point of the URAA ruling is to treat foreign works as if they where properly published in the US. By the logic of this legal ruling the work can not be legally considered to have been published in the US, the US laws are therefore null and void and only the foreign copyrigth laws apply. A very different conclusion.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- So we should cherrypick from a decision that's widely attacked as wrong and is incredibly dangerous to our position, putting many works published before 1923 in copyright? That would be stupid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unpublished anonymous works are protected for 120 years in the United States. The map is not yet 120 years old. The court ruling you mentioned is typically ignored on Commons anyway, although there's a disclaimer at COM:HIRTLE (search for "In Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ONLY"). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
WMF applies the precautionary principle with full rigor on flagged files, but in practice we apply “best effort” in stopping en detecting copy violations. Some copyvio's will always slip past the checks. If we apply the “precautionary principle” fully we have to stop all uploads to be certain that their are no copyvio's. The checks en detection of copyvio's depend on the goodwill en trust (good faith) of the community.
Frank discussions over policy by WMF are hindered by the fact that all discussions are public and can be scanned by lawyers of law companies looking for a profit opportunity or people and organizations with a grudge against wikipedia. So any suggestion that the WMF is not fully applying the law or looking for a way out is problematic. It is as if you discussing how to legally avoid tax, with the tax man sitting in. Most wikipedians from outside the US, don't understand the legal issues and how it can possibly affect them. They are turned off, disgusted and don't participate in the WMF discussions. I can try to start a discussion there but it will be against a stacked deck.
Everything is treated as a strictly a legal issue. It is also about attitude. Conflicting laws between countries are not unusual, and there are even conflicts within the US, as the use of medicinal cannabis in California. Lawyers are there to find solutions and ways to live with stupid laws. The lawmakers certainly didn't intend to complicate matters for the WMF, but where going for the massif piracy in music, films and others things of commercial value. Not an old picture of a French village with only a historical value.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Insufficient evidence was given that this is an anonymous work - if the author could be found with due diligence then it would be PD-old-50 in Canada and may still be in copyright there. Not transferred. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this bridge of Luigi Moretti (died in 1973) is too recent (1972) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome). Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Bridges are not "architecture" in the USA and, therefore, do not have copyrights. Does Italian law include bridges in "architecture"? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Italian law not say expressly if bridges are "architecture", but it say that all intellectual work is protected by copyright, so also this original bridge.--Dega180 (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Requiring habitability for architecture or for the eligibility of copyrighted architecture is, as far as I know, just a concept of US law. I'm not familiar with Italian case law. But I guess that in the case of this bridge it comes to the point whether its character is mainly utilitarian or not. To me it appears to be a plain cantilever bridge with Y-shaped piers. From this picture it is hard to find anything distinctive or unique in its design. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Try to copy this bridge and make, more egual and see if the architect makes you lawsuit. The achitect spent a lot of time and he earned a lot of money for the project of this bridge.--Dega180 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The concept of "architecture" between Italy and USA is different from many points of view. One of them has also emerged from this DR. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Try to copy this bridge and make, more egual and see if the architect makes you lawsuit. The achitect spent a lot of time and he earned a lot of money for the project of this bridge.--Dega180 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Requiring habitability for architecture or for the eligibility of copyrighted architecture is, as far as I know, just a concept of US law. I'm not familiar with Italian case law. But I guess that in the case of this bridge it comes to the point whether its character is mainly utilitarian or not. To me it appears to be a plain cantilever bridge with Y-shaped piers. From this picture it is hard to find anything distinctive or unique in its design. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: At first glance this would appear to be a utilitarian structure. In the absence of exact knowledge of the law, or any Italian IP lawyers, we should try to discern the purpose or spirit of the law. Does it seem likely that the architect's estate is trying to make any money from photos of this bridge? // moogsi(blah) 09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my comment :) // moogsi(blah) 09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Off topic a bit
I'm only asking this because I can't follow the previous discussions in Italian: is it really possible that every structure with a named creator is subject to this law? Architects are also engineers. If I am an Italian architect and I design a tunnel or a sewer system, can I rest assured that the law will assume that I made artistic decisions and will give me copyright on all the pictures taken inside? I'm a modernist and there is almost no gap between form and function in my work, but I actually spent a lot of time balancing the proportions according to my artistic vision and the clandestine subgenre I work in. Or maybe the structure is entirely functional. Nobody knows or can know. Just because I put a lot of time and effort into something and I get paid a lot, it doesn't make it my intellectual property, and it's not necessarily a work of art, even if it could be considered beautiful. It's just engineering.
Sorry for going off-topic but: just because the law is stupid, doesn't mean that it has to be followed interpreted without consideration // moogsi(blah) 10:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to get a culture about this matter I uploaded on Commons Category:Copyright law of Italy anything that is available in the PD or CC-BY-SA. The problem for you is that it is all in Italian. :( With a Google translator however the core of the question you can undestand. To answer the questions. NOT every structure but every structure with a named creator which exceeds the threshold of originality is subject to the Italian copyright (Diritto di autore). Yes, the architects or the engineers, given that the law allows them to obtain the exclusive rights on any work produced, they assume all the rights to utilize, only with their permission, any reproduction made to their work. All Italians of us grudgingly accept this law, but we can never change it. So, in the case of the sewer system, the author assume all the rights to utilize it which exceeds the threshold of originality for the author. The concept of the limitation of copyright due to utilitarian uses of the work is not present in the Italian legislation. Instead, there is the concept of limitation of the copyright if the object is manufactured in mass or in many many quantities. The Italian law has a noticeable difference with the Anglo-Saxon law or the USA law because -it is to remember- in Italy the Roman law has remained in use and in the point of view of the law. Do you think this is not a good reason to protest? Italian Wikipedia said NO. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for this explanation... I almost voted keep on this but then I realized there must be someone who knows 100x as much about this than I do. I did look at the documents linked from COM:FOP#Italy.. perhaps that section could be edited if this whole discussion on it.wiki is really over.
- And then I got frustrated and tried to apply reason to intellectual property law, which is usually a big mistake. Immediately after I wrote the above I realized that it was a bad idea.
- Thanks :) --moogsi(blah) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I've removed the closed it.wiki discussion from COM:FOP#Italy. I'm sorry, the Italian copyright is very very difficult. It's written in a cryptic language so I imagine how hard it is for people who is not Italian to understand it. I wish I could live in the USA or UK where these problems do not arise. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) --moogsi(blah) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Indian copyright is at least 60 years; works published in 1947 were thus in copyright in Indian in 1996, and thus were restored by the URAA and are in copyright in the US. Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
KeepThis file was restored by URAA? Give more details. I'll try to reply here soon! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)- How can you keep if you don't even know what the URAA is? It's the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slow down Oh, so you have come from that Wikipedia Media Help question? I did not notice it before posting. I check my emails first. Anyway, so, can't we upload images to Commons if only PD-India is applicable? I request to slow down (for all three images) and don't go for a speedy deletion. This might be a more serious problem that just 3 image deletion) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a standard DR, not a speedy deletion. COM:L has always said that "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." The fact is that we are acknowledging that the URAA put many works under copyright in the US, and thus we have to delete many works. Yes, this is a serious problem. Nonetheless, these three images need to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- See this discussion which was closed as a "no consensus" and it was suggested to upload a replacement image (published in 1934/40). Now, since I can't add PD-US for 1940 image, obviously I have to choose PD-India for it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This file File:Cropped first indian independence day red fort.png has been nominated for deletion, which is actually a derivative work, this is main work File:Indian_Independence_Day_at_the_Red_Fort.jpg, this photo should be nominated too (this photo was uploaded by a Commons admin), please nominate the main work for deletion too. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-1996}} for works of a nation out of copyright in that nation in 1996 and not otherwise published in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- See this discussion which was closed as a "no consensus" and it was suggested to upload a replacement image (published in 1934/40). Now, since I can't add PD-US for 1940 image, obviously I have to choose PD-India for it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a standard DR, not a speedy deletion. COM:L has always said that "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." The fact is that we are acknowledging that the URAA put many works under copyright in the US, and thus we have to delete many works. Yes, this is a serious problem. Nonetheless, these three images need to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slow down Oh, so you have come from that Wikipedia Media Help question? I did not notice it before posting. I check my emails first. Anyway, so, can't we upload images to Commons if only PD-India is applicable? I request to slow down (for all three images) and don't go for a speedy deletion. This might be a more serious problem that just 3 image deletion) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can you keep if you don't even know what the URAA is? It's the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There is something which I don't understand: that are in the public domain in at least the United States??? SO, the Wikimedia project is only concerned with United States, and not in India or any-other country? If so, please put it live only in US, or give every country and their policies a fair trial. For an Indian article, if the file has expired copyright, and is in public domain in India, why to drag US policies here? Though there is enough evidence for this thing to be live in India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go discuss it at COM:L. The Wikimedia Foundation is chartered in the US, and has to follow the laws thereof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- In that case other photos are (or the derivative work is) also in {{PD-1996}} --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other photos? Works published in 1947 were not PD in India in 1996, thus PD-1996 is not a valid license tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The main photo from which they cropped the second photo (links above), that should be nominated for deletion too. I am waiting to get some suggestion from here: User_talk:Trijnstel#PD_Image. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other photos? Works published in 1947 were not PD in India in 1996, thus PD-1996 is not a valid license tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- In that case other photos are (or the derivative work is) also in {{PD-1996}} --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-India. Yann (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Renominating. The work is in the public domain in India, but not in the United States, because it was in copyright in 1996 in India (at least 60 pd for works published 1941 or later). It will remain in copyright in the US until 2043. This was clearly stated in the previous nomination and supported by the discussion, and Yann's closure (which did not even acknowledge the argument for deletion) was improper. Update: because Canada has rule of the shorter term, all PD-India files can and will be moved to Wikilivres after deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- This issue was confusing, I tried to talk to Commons admins which was later taken to ANI, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_36#PD-India where they suggested "systematic review" or "bot using" etc. Oppose this delete one file, keep other files idea. If deleted all "PD-Country -PD-US" should be deleted. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We are deleting all the other files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- NO, hold, please stop deleting these files right now. They told about "systematic review" and "systematic deletion", not 1 by 1 "I support it", "I don't support it" type deletion.
- Thousands and thousands files are involved here, hundreds of Wikipedia featured article, good articles will be affected. If they are going to delete all these files, please move those files (or selected few thousand files) to Wikipedia wher they alow only PD-country images. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The law says we can't host these. Not Commons, and not Wikipedia or any WMF wiki without carefully making sure they're fair use. We're not going to leave them here indefinitely while people say we should move them and do nothing about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right! I was wrong, it seems, I did not read the Wikipedia page attentively. BTW, can you tell me if this particular file can be saved by any URAA license? "Times" group newspaper, can't we expect it reached in US too in next 30 days? OR any other license? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The law says we can't host these. Not Commons, and not Wikipedia or any WMF wiki without carefully making sure they're fair use. We're not going to leave them here indefinitely while people say we should move them and do nothing about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- ANI posted here --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Before 1957, it was 50 years pma. So this became in the PD at the end of 1997. Yann (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bapu and Baa.jpg, this is incorrect. India's extension was not retroactive, in the sense that works already in the public domain in 1991 did not have their term extended, but any works still in copyright in 1991 did have their terms extended to 60 pma. See en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_india: "India extended its general term from 50 to 60 years in Act 13 of 1992, effective from December 31, 1991. The change was made in part to further protect the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941." Dcoetzee (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
File is still under copyright -FASTILY (TALK) 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair use. Copyright has not expired! 92.226.250.147 06:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
fair use Ralf Roletschek (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept See above. Yann (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{Anonymous-EU}} is not a valid licence for artworks from Germany. The copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist, whether anonymous or not. See the disclaimer in the template which talks about "certain German works". There is no evidence that the artist died at least 70 years ago.
This is protected by copyright in the United States because it was published less than 95 years ago. Stefan4 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Other than fair use: I agree with both authors that this would constitute fair use, or freedom of information under further European Directives. Read the template discussion @ Template_talk:Anonymous-EU, which provides the legal conditions, by Martina Nollte. That is: copyright lasts until 70 years after the authors death (pma) if his name gets known within 70 years since the work's first publication or if the work is for the first time published after the author's death. As the name is not known and the work was published in the year given on it.Adam37 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder, wouldn't this also be sort of Amtliches Werk (i.e., government work), as it was issued by the de:Rassenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP ? --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, it seems that it is only possible to use {{PD-GermanGov}} for text. This is not text. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This is such a powerful illustration for articles on the National Socialist government's propaganda on eliminating the ill and weak members of society. Is it really necessary to know the date of the death of the artist (who is likely not identified) to use 70+ year old poster? The government no longer exists. Is Wikipedia really going to enforce the copyright of a now defunct government? 63.143.225.18 21:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I have understood, German law says that the copyright holder always is the author (not the author's employer), so I'd assume that the copyright holder isn't the Nazi government but the illustrator's heirs. The problem comes from § 66.4 in the former German copyright law which seems to say that {{Anonymous-EU}} doesn't apply to anonymous artworks. But maybe this is a photo? I believe that photos aren't artworks under the former copyright law, although they are artworks under the current copyright law. Anyway, COM:URAA still messes it up. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep I believe we are apply the current German copyright law, as this is what users of the artwork would encounter in court. The understanding on the Commons seems to be that in Germany (and most EU states) anonymous works (whose author is never revealed, not just anonymous at the time of publication) become public domain 70 years after publication. --Simonxag (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The rule is that Germany uses either the current law or the former law, whichever provides the longer protection, due to some transnational rule as explained in the {{Anonymous-EU}} template. The former law usually provides a much longer copyright term for anonymous artworks. Besides, there is additionally the issue with the USA copyright: no German work produced in 1926 or later can be hosted on Commons without permission because it is still protected by copyright in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A possible new solution: per this discussion (in German) works of legal bodies were protected only for 50 years after publication resp. 70 years per the new version of this law. Might this be applicable in this case? --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting more complex... Maybe we shouldn't use {{Anonymous-EU}} for German works at all but make a new {{PD-DE-unknown}} like the {{PD-UK-unknown}} template. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care which way it'll be closed, but if you delete this, then upload the image back on the local projects. Because it happens way too many times that an image from a local project is 'transferred' to commons, then for some reason is deleted here, and then the local project no longer has the image, even though it fully meets the local project policy (because it's fair use for example, or under a license that is accepted there but not on commons, etc), and was used there for a long time. It's your responsibility to check this, and repair the damage. Cenarium (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- It might have helped to be less aggressive. As you can easily read from between the lines of the above discussion, we all want to keep that historically important image, but we are unsure whether it's really legal. Therefore we are racking our brain to find a legal solution or loophole.
- And about :en and fair-use: well, we had an established fair-use transfer process to copy images, which required deletion from Commons, but were used on :en, though it meant quite some manual extra work for the deleting Commons' admin. But then a few folks over on :en made a big fuss when 1 (one) image had been unnecessarily fair-used to :en and even blocked the bot. So, bye-bye fair-use transfer. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem was in fact that it turned out that w:User:Commons fair use upload bot was an unapproved bot (because something had been overlooked somewhere in the process). Shortly after that block, the bot was approved, and it seems to be back to work now. There is a minor problem with the bot: it can't add fair use rationales itself, so files are sometimes deleted again because of that. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently still copyrighted in the US. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - possible FoP issues are DM in this case - Jcb (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Previous nomination (reason "no FOP in Dubai") was closed with"possible FoP issues are DM in this case". However, both buildings appear far too large for de minimis to be defence. Both buildings appear architecturally complete and therefore copyright the architect, one of whom is Cox Group, but no evidence that they have given permission. The OTRS linked here is from the photographer, and not sufficient. Unless I am missing something - if so could the necesaary licensing permission be made clearer in the description? 84user (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The entire purpose of the image appears to be the tallest building on the photo, so that building is not de minimis. The photo also shows a couple of other surrounding images, but since those couldn't be avoided when taking the photo, those other buildings are in my opinion de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 07:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - possible FoP issues are DM in this case - Jcb (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Briefly: no FOP in UAE, see See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Park Place on 29 May 2007.jpg and Commons:Freedom of panorama#United_Arab_Emirates; subject appears too large for de minimis to be plausible defence, see Commons:De minimis, example section shows possibly permissible panoramas but this definitely does not fall into that case. 84user (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
See also: COM:BI#File:Affiche rouge.jpg. Unclear status about licence. Will be PD in 2015-01-01, but now? Enought to says "Nazi administration in France will not claim anything"? --MGuf (d) 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Displayed on many different Wikipedia, but not on wp:en, where the file is with fair-use, as a no free content (see en:Affiche Rouge, Affiche Rouge ----MGuf (d) 06:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's not possible to have "author: none"; perhaps collective, or unknowed... ----MGuf (d) 06:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is the most stupid DR we have since a long time. And we have a lot of silly DRs... :( There is a situation where the author disappeared in the history, and I doubt he could even claim legally a copyright. It is a bit like the illegal graffiti. Any copyright holder would get sue for "war crime". Let's get sensible and forget this... Yann (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Les commanditaires qui sont à l’origine de cette de cette affiche, condamnés pour crimes contre l’Humanité ont-ils des droits ?--Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why this file have a GFDL or cc-by-sa licence? Which license sould be ok? Not PD! So what is the reason we can keep this file on Commons? ----MGuf (d) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted in both France and USA. There is no evidence that the photographer committed any crime. He might have been subject to forced labour or something. Besides, even if the photographer did commit any crime, I assume that the photographer's heirs could sue someone for copyright infringement. The photos of the liberators might even have been taken in a situation not related to war. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep La France était à l'époque sous les lois du Gouvernement de Vichy. L'Ordonnance du 9 août 1944 déclare que "Sont, en conséquence, nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du Gouvernement provisoire de la république française.". L'affiche en question est bien relative à la règlementation imposée par les Nazis et Vichy. Sa publication à l'époque est donc nulle de nul effet et de par cette ordonnance et ne peut faire l'objet de droits. Reste à identifier comment rédiger ceci dans le champ "licence". J'ai changé aujourd'hui la licence en conséquence. --olevy (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I interpret that as referring only to laws and similar decisions by the Vichy regime. Copyright law existed before WWII. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tant que ton argument ne figure que ici, je laisse, il contribue au débat ; mais si tu changes la source, avec un prétendu argument juridique inédit (mais en laissant le CC-By-SA) je l'enlève --> attend que soit trouvé sous quelle statut de licence se trouve ce document, si toutefois il est conservé. (d'ailleurs, à "source", il faut mettre d'où vient le document, pas sa licence)----MGuf (d) 14:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- L'usage de {{PD-because}} est probablement une bonne idée, si on trouve une bonne raison à mettre dedans, mais surement pas de dire que les lois de Vichy ne s'appliquent plus ([5]). Les lois sur les droit d'auteurs ne datent pas de Vichy, et cette affiche n'est pas l'expression d'une loi, mais une propagande. ----MGuf (d) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As written in fr:Affiche rouge#Production_et_diffusion, historian Michel Wlassikoff believes that the publisher is « Centre d'études antibolcheviques », a Vichy administration. Some of the photographs, for example Wajsbrot (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1983-009-08A, Französischer Widerstandskämpfer.jpg) and Witchitz (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1983-077-08A, Französischer Widerstandskämpfer.jpg) were released as Creative Commons licensed pictures by the Bundesarchiv. I guess however that the photographer was French, and that the German nazis never owned copyright in the first place, so that the Bundesarchiv license is bogus. Whether the photographer was a private photographer commissioned by the French government or commissioned by the German government or a French government employee is not an important question as government works are copyrighted in France. Teofilo (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Building on Teofilo's post, the poster author is precisely one of the organisation declared "cancelled" by the ordinance. So Olevy is right, that the legal basis for declaring that the copyright either does not exist, or can't be claimed (that's a legalese detail which does not have any change on the result, but if someone would like to look that further, you are welcome). Yann (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if an organisation is declared "cancelled", wouldn't all property held by that organisation be "inherited" by someone? I doubt that buildings owned by the organisation were destroyed (someone else took over the buildings), and I'm wondering if copyright wouldn't also be transferred to someone else. Besides, the Bundesarchiv links suggest that some or all of the photos were taken from other sources, unaffected by the quoted law. If Bundesarchiv's copyright claim is correct, then the photos of those two men can be used provided that Bundesarchiv is credited, but there is no information about the other photos.
- Is the copyright to a work made for a French organisation held by the author or by the organisation? The quoted law probably doesn't affect the copyright status of works copyrighted by individuals. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever is the author, he cannot claim a copyright because the poster is illegal, as it is part of a war crime, like I said above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The individual photos are obviously from different sources and are not necessarily war crimes. Also, the law only applies to France. It might be possible to claim copyright in the United States, and Commons files also have to be free in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Each photo would be de minimis. If we accept that there is no copyright for this in France, then this is the case since 1944. There was no copyright mention on it, so it did not follow US rules. Such a work is considered a collective work, so usual duration is 70 years after publication. Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- De minimis: Normally, something would count as de minimis if the inclusion of the copyrighted work is unimportant to the whole work and couldn't be avoided. For example, File:GD-FR-Paris-Champ de Mars.jpg was taken to show a regular city view. The inclusion of Tour Montparnasse couldn't be avoided (you can't take a photo of that part of Paris without first demolishing the tower) and the tower isn't included for the purpose of showing the tower. However, on this poster, the photos are included for the purpose of showing what the photos look like, so they can't be de minimis. Otherwise, you could say that a general discussion page such as COM:VP can't be copyrighted because the work of each individual contributor only is de minimis to the whole page. Compare with this image which was ruled as a copyright infringement by a Swedish court because this image and this image were included without permission. The purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website used images, so the image can't be de minimis. French law might be different from Swedish law, but note the text at COM:FOP#France: "Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.)"
- URAA: I think the important thing here is to determine if the work has no copyright or if no copyright can be claimed. If it has copyright, but copyright can't be claimed, I'm wondering if it wouldn't still be subject to URAA restoration. However, I realise that France had a different copyright term on the URAA date since the EU copyright length directive wasn't applied until a few months later. What was the copyright term for anonymous works in France on the URAA date? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Each photo would be de minimis. If we accept that there is no copyright for this in France, then this is the case since 1944. There was no copyright mention on it, so it did not follow US rules. Such a work is considered a collective work, so usual duration is 70 years after publication. Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The individual photos are obviously from different sources and are not necessarily war crimes. Also, the law only applies to France. It might be possible to claim copyright in the United States, and Commons files also have to be free in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever is the author, he cannot claim a copyright because the poster is illegal, as it is part of a war crime, like I said above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Building on Teofilo's post, the poster author is precisely one of the organisation declared "cancelled" by the ordinance. So Olevy is right, that the legal basis for declaring that the copyright either does not exist, or can't be claimed (that's a legalese detail which does not have any change on the result, but if someone would like to look that further, you are welcome). Yann (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Les personnes qui ont dessiné cette affiche travaillaient pour le 3e Reich allemand qui est la personne morale (oxymore) qui possédait les droits d'auteur, comme dans n'importe quelle entreprise, c'est l'entreprise et non les employés qui possède les droits sur ce qui est publié au nom de l'entreprise. Soit on considère que le 3e Reich a disparu et personne ne viendra réclamer de droits d'auteurs, soit on considère que la RFA en est l'héritière légale et il est inconcevable qu'elle s'oppose à cette publication. --olevy (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The author(s) cannot practically (and may also not legally) claim a copyright. Same case as illegal graffiti. Yann (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yann's closure after extensive involvement in the original deletion request was improper. The license tag stating "This file is in the public domain, because the author(s) cannot practically (and may also not legally) claim a copyright" is absurd. This idea is based in speculation, as there is no reason to believe the photographer is guilty of any war crimes, nor do I believe the law would deny their heirs the benefit of copyright even if they were. I have no idea what the term for anonymous works was in France or Germany on the URAA date, but if it was anything over 51 years (which especially with wartime extensions in France is very likely) then the images were not in the public domain there on the URAA date. To make matters worse, this is a montage and these photos may have been taken by a variety of authors, or been previously published in another nation (and contrary to Yann's statement, the small photos are not at all de minimis in this work - they are primary elements of the composition). We'd need a lot more evidence to keep this work. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The anonymous term in Germany was the same as it is now, meaning 70 years pd for text and photos, and 70 years pma for artistic works. en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights has a link to the former French law, but unfortunately the link is broken. Note that there was also a discussion about this image at COM:BI while the previous nomination was running, with some comments posted after the closure. See also File:Affiche rouge 182x152.jpg which is a different version of the same poster. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Les personnes qui ont dessiné cette affiche travaillaient pour le 3e Reich allemand qui est la personne morale (oxymore) qui possédait les droits d'auteur. Comme dans n'importe quelle entreprise, c'est l'entreprise et non les employés qui possède les droits sur ce qui est publié au nom de l'entreprise. Soit on considère que le 3e Reich a disparu et personne ne viendra réclamer de droits d'auteurs, soit on considère que la RFA en est l'héritière légale et il est inconcevable qu'elle s'oppose à cette publication. --olevy (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay if anonymous works were at least 70 pd in Germany on the URAA date, then any work dating to 1944 was certainly in copyright in 1996, and so remains copyrighted in the US until at least 2040. The photos re-used in the work may be slightly older and have unknown nations of first publication, but are still very likely published in or after 1926. Olevy is suggesting it might be a government work, and I'm not sure what happens in that case - I would guess that Germany would still hold the rights. I don't find it inconceivable that they would act to enforce them. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is inconceivable because the Federal Republic of Germany made public thousands of documents illustrating the behavior of the Nazis during WWII, taken from Nazis archives. --olevy (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- To make a work public is not the same as to release it into the public domain. Even if Germany did release some Nazi documents into the public domain, I would like to see some evidence that this document was either among them or satisfied the same general criteria as other released works. Otherwise, this is just speculation. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is not legally possible to release works to the public domain in the European Union. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- To make a work public is not the same as to release it into the public domain. Even if Germany did release some Nazi documents into the public domain, I would like to see some evidence that this document was either among them or satisfied the same general criteria as other released works. Otherwise, this is just speculation. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is inconceivable because the Federal Republic of Germany made public thousands of documents illustrating the behavior of the Nazis during WWII, taken from Nazis archives. --olevy (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep My closure was not improper. Commons policy says that there needs to be a copyright holder who might be able to claim pratically and legally for a copyright to exist. I cannot imagine the author of this file claiming a copyright, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The illegal graffiti policy is quite contentious as it is, and your unilateral extension of it is even more shaky. There is no reason under the law to suppose that a person who is a criminal cannot claim copyright to a work; many murderers create and publish artworks from their jail cells and enjoy the royalties thereof. Moreover, as others explained repeatedly above, there is no reason to suppose the person who took these photos was not an innocent or uninvolved person, who might even have been compelled to do so. As for your closure, it was improper as I said because of your extensive involvement in the DR, not just because of the closing statement. DRs must generally be closed by neutral third parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you are wrong on all counts. There are many examples where criminals are denied the claim of copyright, but the author of this poster was not an ordinary criminal. He would be punishable for war crime. It is quite extraordinary to suppose that the author is innocent. Then I did not create nor upload this image, so I don't see why I could not express my opinion and close the request. There is no rule saying that admins can't do so. Yann (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to get at but there's a lot of missing information here. The description claims the Vichy regime created the poster, and their leaders might have been convicted of war crimes, but the organization was never convicted as a whole (an organization cannot be guilty of war crimes, only particular members); it's not clear who holds the copyright today, or who created the photos that make it up. Those could very well have been taken from Resistance's own files. If either France or Germany is effectively the successor state to this administration, then the state holds the copyright. There is not enough evidence here to show that the copyright holder of the work in all its parts is a person who is guilty of war crimes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- We already have some of the photos used in the poster (Missak Manouchian, Marcel Rayman. If the copyright holder is not a person, the case is even easier. The French Wikipedia mentions that the creator is the Centre d'études antibolcheviques (Center for anti-bolshevik studies), an organisation which was dissolved in 1944, a few months after the poster was created. I don't see how this organisation could claim a copyright today, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The IP of organisations doesn't magically enter the public domain when they shut down. Usually there's a liquidation phase in which their rights are sold to third parties in order to pay debts, reparations, etc. If the organisation is dissolved that only makes it all the more difficult to identify the present-day copyright holder. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- We already have some of the photos used in the poster (Missak Manouchian, Marcel Rayman. If the copyright holder is not a person, the case is even easier. The French Wikipedia mentions that the creator is the Centre d'études antibolcheviques (Center for anti-bolshevik studies), an organisation which was dissolved in 1944, a few months after the poster was created. I don't see how this organisation could claim a copyright today, neither pratically or legally. Yann (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you're trying to get at but there's a lot of missing information here. The description claims the Vichy regime created the poster, and their leaders might have been convicted of war crimes, but the organization was never convicted as a whole (an organization cannot be guilty of war crimes, only particular members); it's not clear who holds the copyright today, or who created the photos that make it up. Those could very well have been taken from Resistance's own files. If either France or Germany is effectively the successor state to this administration, then the state holds the copyright. There is not enough evidence here to show that the copyright holder of the work in all its parts is a person who is guilty of war crimes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you are wrong on all counts. There are many examples where criminals are denied the claim of copyright, but the author of this poster was not an ordinary criminal. He would be punishable for war crime. It is quite extraordinary to suppose that the author is innocent. Then I did not create nor upload this image, so I don't see why I could not express my opinion and close the request. There is no rule saying that admins can't do so. Yann (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The illegal graffiti policy is quite contentious as it is, and your unilateral extension of it is even more shaky. There is no reason under the law to suppose that a person who is a criminal cannot claim copyright to a work; many murderers create and publish artworks from their jail cells and enjoy the royalties thereof. Moreover, as others explained repeatedly above, there is no reason to suppose the person who took these photos was not an innocent or uninvolved person, who might even have been compelled to do so. As for your closure, it was improper as I said because of your extensive involvement in the DR, not just because of the closing statement. DRs must generally be closed by neutral third parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with Doc 100%. This work is copyrighted, and "the owners will not bother to sue" directly runs afoul of COM:PRP and the spirit of Commons. And saying "well we have have Graffiti" is a perfect example of the what about X fallacy used in deletion discussions. This item is non-free in both its source country and the US. That should be the end of the discussion. Period. The only way this item can stay is if Yann provides proof that the work is now in the PD, per COM:EVID. So far, he has provided only speculation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems you didn't even read what I wrote above. Otherwise, you message is not worth answering. I mean that your post looks like a propaganda speach, not a help finding a solution to a problem. Yann (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I read everything you wrote, and I refuted it point by point. My argument was not meant to be an ad hominem; why is yours? If you think my logic is wrong, please point out the flaw in it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems you didn't even read what I wrote above. Otherwise, you message is not worth answering. I mean that your post looks like a propaganda speach, not a help finding a solution to a problem. Yann (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment added copy of this file; it should really be deleted either way, and replaced by this file if this file is kept.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This will apply.
{{PD-GermanGov}} --olevy (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to text and not to images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no similarity between a stamp and a poster informing the population of a judgment taken by the German state. --olevy (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both are artistic works and the court ruling stated that {{PD-GermanGov}} doesn't apply to artistic works. Also, there is no evidence that the German government took any of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps cannot be reproduced "because they are not published for general knowledge, but for general use released in monetary transactions". This poster, by definition, was published for general knowledgein 1944 and its republication by Wikipedia is also for general knowledge, therefore the German Federal Government does not oppose this publication. --olevy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps can't be reproduced because "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)". These photos have, I believe, been "works of the visual arts" since Germany implemented the w:Copyright Duration Directive in the 1990s. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is important is the literary work in this poster, basically : "Those so-called liberators have killed, each, scores of people. They constitute a criminal army." The pictures by themselves mean nothing to the readers but with the red color, they only emphasize the criminal side. This is what the Germans wanted to communicate to the French people. --olevy (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- A derivative work remains derivative regardless of the degree to which the perceived overall message of the work involves the creative decisions of the original works. Even if I were to buy this argument, it's clear that the poster's creators selected photos that they believed would portray these figures as menacing or dangerous, rather than jovial or heroic, suggesting that the creative choices of the photographs are relevant to the message. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is important is the literary work in this poster, basically : "Those so-called liberators have killed, each, scores of people. They constitute a criminal army." The pictures by themselves mean nothing to the readers but with the red color, they only emphasize the criminal side. This is what the Germans wanted to communicate to the French people. --olevy (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps can't be reproduced because "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)". These photos have, I believe, been "works of the visual arts" since Germany implemented the w:Copyright Duration Directive in the 1990s. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, stamps cannot be reproduced "because they are not published for general knowledge, but for general use released in monetary transactions". This poster, by definition, was published for general knowledgein 1944 and its republication by Wikipedia is also for general knowledge, therefore the German Federal Government does not oppose this publication. --olevy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both are artistic works and the court ruling stated that {{PD-GermanGov}} doesn't apply to artistic works. Also, there is no evidence that the German government took any of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no similarity between a stamp and a poster informing the population of a judgment taken by the German state. --olevy (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to text and not to images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Olevy and Yann. — Racconish Tk 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. J’ai déjà argumenté lors de la première procédure et je garde le même avis. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Ceci est une affiche désormais en libres droits. --193.252.178.204 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per Dcoetzee. It's all in writing at COM:PRP -FASTILY (TALK) 01:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not PD in the US, copyright only expired in India in 2002 (after 1996). fetchcomms☛ 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with an additional tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we can't use it why keep it? Esuzu (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to care about that treaty, and it seems to be unconsitutional anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. As Pieter Kuiper said, nobody seems to care about that treaty. Yann (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with URAA notice. —innotata 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. These days we do actually care about the URAA, and obviously it was not ruled unconstitutional. Image is an Indian photo published in 1942. Indian photos published 1941 or later have a copyright term of 60 years from publication, so it was copyrighted until 2002, after the 1996 URAA date in India (consistent with Fetchcomms above), and so remains copyrighted in the US until 2038. Like all PD-India images, can and will be reuploaded to Wikilivres. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Before 1957, it was 50 years pma. So this became in the PD at the end of 1992. Yann (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Really? It seems quite rare that such laws don't extend the length of copyright for works still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, photos published before 1941 were in the public domain on the URAA date, but this one was published in 1942. Is the information on Wikipedia wrong? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- India's extension was not retroactive, in the sense that works already in the public domain in 1991 did not have their term extended, but any works still in copyright in 1991 did have their terms extended to 60 pma, and this was very much the intention of the amendment. See en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_india: "India extended its general term from 50 to 60 years in Act 13 of 1992, effective from December 31, 1991. The change was made in part to further protect the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941." Dcoetzee (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Really? It seems quite rare that such laws don't extend the length of copyright for works still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per Dcoetzee -FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
These are images of Superman (or Lois Lane) which are taken from a film that is now in the public domain. There are at least two copyrights that are important here: (1) the copyright of the film, a derivative work, and (2) the copyright of Superman and Lois Lane. To create the film, the producers had to purchase rights from the copyright holder to use the Superman characters in their derivative work. Although the film (1) is public domain, the licensed rights are not. As the rights holder to (2) has not released their rights under a free license, and WikiMedia has not purchased these rights, we can not distribute the film (or at least the parts of the film that are directly based on the rights the producers were licensed to use).
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg for a similar deletion discussion, and also see w:en:It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Ancillary_rights. At least one of these images was not deleted in a previous discussion here, but I believe they should be deleted in this discussion.
- File:Clark Kent en la caricatura 'The Arctic Giant'.png
- File:Clark Kent en la caricatura 'The Magnetic Telescope'.png
- File:Clark Kent y Lois Lane en la caricatura 'The Magnetic Telescope'.png
- File:Fleishersuperman-big cropped.jpg
- File:Fleishersuperman-big.png
- File:Fleishersuperman.jpg
- File:Lois Lane en la caricatura 'The Arctic Giant'.png
- File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg
- File:Superman1941.png
Odie5533 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Results from searching the Library of Congress's catalog of copyright renewals: Third Series: 1966: Title Index: page 1456 has "Superman. SIEGEL, JEROME (R)." I used Google Books and scrolled down to the Jan to June S-entries. This is 28 years after the first appearance in Action Comics June 1938. According to wikimedia's Commons:Hirtle chart, for "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." if the date of publication is "1923 through 1963" and "Published with notice and the copyright was renewed" then the copyright term is "95 years after publication date", or until 1st January 2034 in this case. The 1938 index contained no entries for "Action comics", "Clark Kent", or "Lois Lane". A similar search in "Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third Series: 1966: January-June", Books and Pamphlets section (see page 1194), and in "Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third Series: 1967: January-June" (pages 1200 to 1201) finds more details of Superman registrations by Shuster and Siegel, naming Action Comics and long lists of dates from 1938 to 1940. -84user (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Impressive research! I don't know much about copyright catalog research, but does it give any details on what exactly was copyrighted? "Superman" probably refers to the Superman comics, which include Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and Action Comics. Given that Superman was already exceedingly popular by 1967, I would assume the copyright holders took every necessary step to renew the copyrights on the comic series. And provided the original publication of the character(s) had copyright notices, they would all still be copyright. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Entonces ¿se deberían borrar las fotografías de publicidad que están en dominio público como esta [[[6]]? Aunque los personajes podrían no estar en dominio público la fotografía lo está. ¿Las imágenes tomadas de algún trailer en dominio público no pueden ser tomadas porque la película original no lo está como esta [[7]]? (ver permisos).--Inri (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that first image should probably be removed. There are two copyrights here: (1) that of the photograph and (2) that of the characters. Although the photograph is not copyright, the rights holders still hold the copyright to the characters depicted in the image. As they have not granted us a license to use their characters, we can't distribute depictions of the characters. As soon as the characters are not copyright, the photograph will be free of any copyright because the photo's copyright is already lost. The converse of this is, imagine the Superman rights holders published a comic (as they do each month) in December 2033. The next month, January 2034, the copyright to Superman will enter the public domain. But that comic they just published will not be public domain until the year 2129, because the comic still has a copyright even though it is derived from Superman which is now, in the year 2034, public domain. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Inri, además establezco que no se pueden interpretar las normass de wikipdeia de forma tan restringida, en el caso de los trailers, existe un ley especial que los pasa a dominio público de forma automática, en caso de los cortos de superman, queda claro que están también en dominio público (salvo el logo de la paramount) independientemente sobre los personajes que aparezacan, tendriamos que borrar (poster del mago de oz) está imagen porque algunos de sus personajes tienen copyright si tuvieramos que hacer la interprertación de este usuario [OF OZ ORIGINAL POSTER 1939.jpg]. Saludos. --Lizerlig (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- The trailers are an interesting loophole in a way because their public domain status relies on the fact that they were published before the movies themselves. This is not the case for these images. If the trailers had been released after the film was released, they would be considered a derivative work of the film and be copyright. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
![3 File:"Sokolniki" retro train (Ретропоезд "Сокольники") (5600295986).jpg](#File:"Sokolniki"_retro_train_(Ретропоезд_"Сокольники")_(5600295986).jpg){kind=link}
_By_Agnes_Denes,_1980.jpg){kind=link}
![52 File:"Кулата".JPG](#File:"Кулата".JPG){kind=link}
_15.24.11.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(5600295986).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5600295986).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_By_Agnes_Denes,_1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_By_Agnes_Denes,_1980.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/13#c-Jonund-2013-01-13T17:18:00.000Z-File:"Кулата".JPG){kind=link}
![00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/13#c-Morning_Sunshine-2013-01-20T00:20:00.000Z-File:"Кулата".JPG){kind=link}
_15.24.11.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_15.24.11.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_15.24.11.png){kind=link}
_15.24.11.png){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2860290263).jpg){kind=link}
_(2861118854).jpg){kind=link}
_(2861119518).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_1925.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Philip_Alexis_de_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_copia.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5977528602).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5977528866).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6166578661).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Italy_-_October_11,_2011_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2875111100).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2874282275).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rome_31.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rome_32.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Northern_side_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Northern_side_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Southern_side.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Western_side.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAffiche_rouge.jpg&diff=78060572&oldid=78058998){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Munsters_cast_1964.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boris_Karloff_as_The_Monster_in_Bride_of_Frankenstein_film_trailer.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Looks like the copyright of these images was renewed :/ FASTILY (TALK) 00:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ontario highway images
[edit]- File:400 Wilson.jpg
- File:400 Wilson.png
- File:400 Woodbridge.jpg
- File:400 Woodbridge.png
- File:400 at 401.jpg
- File:400 at 401.png
These are all photos of Highway 400 in Ontario, Canada, from 1951 and 1953. Assuming that the images were works-for-hire produced for the Ontario government, they are public domain in Canada (if they weren't works-for-hire, the PD status in Canada would be in question). However, Commons requires that they also be PD in the United States. To be PD in the States, they would have to have been PD in Canada by January 1, 1996 (the URAA date) - instead, they were PD in Canada in 2001 at the earliest. Therefore, delete for not being PD in the United States. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- URAA date? This makes no sense. They are protected by Canadian copyright, not US. Can they not be uploaded to wikipedia either? The jpg's can all be deleted, I thought I had nominated them right after uploading them. - Floydian (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the Commons, an image must be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the United States where the Commons servers are located (see Commons:Licensing). It's the same rule on the English Wikipedia IRCC. However, at least on Wikipedia you would have the option of uploading them on a fair use basis, which isn't an option here on Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- But what's this Mickey Mouse act of 1996? Why wouldn't images by the Canadian governmen that are cleared of copyright here be extended to the States as well? Who in the states could charge for copyright infringement if they are Canadian property? - Floydian (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright status of an image can vary from country to country. Just because an image is in the public domain in Canada does not mean that it is in the public domain elsewhere -- Canadian law doesn't govern copyright status in other countries, even if it is a Canadian image. While I completely agree that the Ontario government is unlikely to seek to enforce its copyright in the U.S. of an image that is now public domain in Canada, the likelihood of copyright infringement litigation is not the litmus test here on the Commons. It needs to be either public domain or freely licensed in the U.S. Although undoubtedly annoying, this shouldn't be a problem, because images that are used in the Highway 401 article on en-Wikipedia can be uploaded locally under a fair use rationale. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't think that the historical fair use would be challenged since there are other earlier historical images available that are free? - Floydian (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can challenge anything, as you well know on enwiki, but the 1950s was an important decade in highway building in Ontario and these images are qualitively different than the earlier ones from the 1930s and 40s, showing the highways in a different stage of development. There is no free equivalent. I would add that since the images are already PD in their source country, their use on Wikipedia does not make them as a whole less valuable to the copyright holder. I think that would be a stronger fair use rationale than a lot of the rationales being relied upon. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't think that the historical fair use would be challenged since there are other earlier historical images available that are free? - Floydian (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright status of an image can vary from country to country. Just because an image is in the public domain in Canada does not mean that it is in the public domain elsewhere -- Canadian law doesn't govern copyright status in other countries, even if it is a Canadian image. While I completely agree that the Ontario government is unlikely to seek to enforce its copyright in the U.S. of an image that is now public domain in Canada, the likelihood of copyright infringement litigation is not the litmus test here on the Commons. It needs to be either public domain or freely licensed in the U.S. Although undoubtedly annoying, this shouldn't be a problem, because images that are used in the Highway 401 article on en-Wikipedia can be uploaded locally under a fair use rationale. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- But what's this Mickey Mouse act of 1996? Why wouldn't images by the Canadian governmen that are cleared of copyright here be extended to the States as well? Who in the states could charge for copyright infringement if they are Canadian property? - Floydian (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the Commons, an image must be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the United States where the Commons servers are located (see Commons:Licensing). It's the same rule on the English Wikipedia IRCC. However, at least on Wikipedia you would have the option of uploading them on a fair use basis, which isn't an option here on Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- URAA date? This makes no sense. They are protected by Canadian copyright, not US. Can they not be uploaded to wikipedia either? The jpg's can all be deleted, I thought I had nominated them right after uploading them. - Floydian (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - just tag them {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} if you must; delete the duplicates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I retract my earlier endorsement of delete. While I am delighted to see Peter's solution, why isn't it better publicized? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the jpg's anyways. They aren't used and they are inferior quality when resized/thumbnailed. - Floydian (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept the PNGs. Deleted the JPGs. Feel free to change the license tag. Wknight94 talk 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ontario highway images
[edit]Per original nomination above, these photos are from 1951 and 1953, which on the URAA date had a copyright term of 50 years after creation for photos. Hence they were all still in copyright on the 1996 URAA date, and were restored under the URAA in the US until at least 2047. I can move these to Wikilivres after deletion since they're PD in Canada. I can also help move them as fair use candidates to English Wikipedia with {{Fair use delete}} if desired. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- the URAA does not apply to crown copyright, which explicitly states that the copyright expires after 50 years. The Crown Copyright office has confirmed this. See en:WT:CANADA. - Floydian on phone
- Since you weren't able to link the specific discussions, being on your phone, here they are:
- The letter from the Crown Copyright office, as explained by Skeezix1000 and Resolute, does not in fact confirm that "the URAA does not apply to Crown Copyright" - merely that such works are PD in Canada after they expire, and their Canadian copyright is unaffected by the URAA. The URAA is a US law regarding US copyright, and it has no language in it that would exclude Crown Copyright works of Canada from restoration. Even if you secured a letter in which the Crown promised not to ever enforce their US copyright over Crown Copyright works, there would be no way to enforce such a contract. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, Dcoetzee is correct in respect of the email you received. It did not say anything about copyright status in the U.S. I would like to pursue that issue with you, but at present we do not have what we need. In any event, these images belong to the Ontario government, not the federal government. The provincial Crowns are completely separate from the federal Crown, and we'd need separate sign-off from Ontario. Did you not have some sort of email from the Ontario gov't? I've lost track of it over the course of these discussions.
As for Dcoetzee's comments about contract, I am not sure that is true. Commons has accepted similar confirmation in respect of U.K. crown copyright (see {{PD-UKGov}}). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, Dcoetzee is correct in respect of the email you received. It did not say anything about copyright status in the U.S. I would like to pursue that issue with you, but at present we do not have what we need. In any event, these images belong to the Ontario government, not the federal government. The provincial Crowns are completely separate from the federal Crown, and we'd need separate sign-off from Ontario. Did you not have some sort of email from the Ontario gov't? I've lost track of it over the course of these discussions.
- the URAA does not apply to crown copyright, which explicitly states that the copyright expires after 50 years. The Crown Copyright office has confirmed this. See en:WT:CANADA. - Floydian on phone
Deleted, per Dcoetzee -FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)