Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Because it's mine and I want to do do it Kiruwi (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Vilhelms Purvītis was a Latvian artist who died in 1945, per en:Vilhelms Purvītis. His works remain copyrighted in Latvia until 2016, presuming the Latvian extension from 50 pma to 70 pma was retroactive (if it was not retroactive then this expired in 1995 and is okay). I have already uploaded a higher-resolution version of this work to English Wikipedia (en:File:Vilhelms Purvītis - Winter - Google Art Project.jpg). and replaced uses there. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Everything published in Russian Empire before 1917 is PD. The painting is from 1910, hence it is PD. Please reupload the high-resolution version here on Commons on top of mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't know about that. Sorry for not reading the license tag more carefully. Makes sense to me. I'll upload separately and replace all uses since the two versions aren't identical and the metadata is somewhat different. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. {{PD-RusEmpire}} seems to apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be "own work": Low resolution image, probably grabbed from a news-website's article about the recent maiden flight. This is the picture most of them use to illustrate this event, so it probably came from one of the usual media agencies. Here is an example (note the higher resolution version). El Grafo (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 18:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
licence problem 178.254.162.30 19:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Anuragtiwari1408 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Anuragtiwari1408 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a movie. Jespinos (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted russavia (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm the uploader, speedy delete due to No FOP in the US -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm the uploader, speedy delete due to No FOP in the US -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. © All Rights Reserved by Vae Isakhanian. Takabeg (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio --moogsi(blah) 10:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a screenshot from a press conference video. Jespinos (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesn't look like a free image --moogsi·(blah) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Size doesn't matter, JaviP96!
At least not here. I agree with the nomination, very likely not own work but taken from a website. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![33 File:Otterbein University "Cardy the Cardinal".jpg](#File:Otterbein_University_"Cardy_the_Cardinal".jpg){kind=link}
_004.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, nature of the photo, and the uploader's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio. © All Rights Reserved by Vae Isakhanian. Takabeg (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 03:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value at this tiny size INeverCry 03:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File is actually from US News' website; no indication it's not copyrighted. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/otterbein-college-3110 Esrever (klaT) 05:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File obviously found on the internet and uploaded as the user's own. Esrever (klaT) 05:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a copyright violation. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by McZusatz. Yann (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted university athletics logo. Esrever (klaT) 05:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
![05:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/29#c-Esrever-2013-01-29T05:27:00.000Z-File:Otterbein_University_"Cardy_the_Cardinal".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/29#c-Yann-2013-02-03T16:01:00.000Z-File:Otterbein_University_"Cardy_the_Cardinal".jpg){kind=link}
_004.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_004.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
just an unused link Petrus Adamus (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
_004.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
_004.jpg){kind=link}
A photo of a scene from a film (no permission). Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Very small and no EXIF. The original uploader has numerous messages about copyright problems at his talk page (see w:User talk:Posuur), so this might also be a copyvio. Stefan4 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
per COM:DW Morning ☼ (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a copy of this file on en.wiki, and it shows the photographer's name as "Ali Zain", not the uploader. Source is shown as "sent to me personally" and permission as "Evidence: Will be provided on request". So my opinion is that it's a promotional shot, and we have no proof that the permission of the orginal photographer has been obtained. Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: This file has been moved from en.wiki to Commons and is tagged to be deleted there. "Will be provided on request" isn't a good enough permission rationale, it needs at least to go through OTRS --moogsi(blah) 09:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Excepting the possibility that the uploader on Commons is actually the author --moogsi(blah) 09:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Distorted and uploaded 3 times. Undistorted version at File:DSS Seal 3.png Fry1989 eh? 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded 3 times. Other version at File:DSS Seal 3.png Fry1989 eh? 00:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I recommend to keep File:Diplomatic Security Service DSS seal version 4.jpg. However, File:DSS Seal 3.png can be deleted. I uploaded the images. Version 4 is the better one. User talk:TheQuigley
- I have no objection. Fry1989 eh? 02:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm the uploader, speedy delete due to No FOP in the US -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep There is nothing to get a copyright here. Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm the uploader and this was not supposed to be uploaded -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing to get a copyright here. Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in the UAE for modern buildings, sculptures or paintings. The artist (architect, painter, or sculptor) must be dead for 70 years before the image becomes copyright free and can be placed on WikiCommons. Leoboudv (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:NBAD-TOWER-Abu-Dhabi.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. All of those buildings were recently (post-Soviet) built in Stepanakert.
The building of the National Assembly & Armenia Hotel
- File:Stepanakert-parlament.jpg
- File:House of Parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh.JPG
- File:Stepanakert027.JPG
- File:Stepanakert112-3.jpg
- File:Stepanakert026.JPG
- File:Stepanakert025.JPG
- File:Stepanakert101-4.jpg
Artsakh State University
- File:Университет.jpg (not only FOP, but also direct copyright violation)
Artsakh Bank
Others
Takabeg (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Brook Bernacchi died in 1996, copyright of his photo will end in 2046 太刻薄 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is his portrait in the 1950s that means the copyright has expired as it has already been more than 50 years.--Lmmnhn (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- copyright of HK lasts for the duration of the life of an author and 50 years after the author's death.--太刻薄 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. According to this website, this image belongs to Armen Galustyan. And the same image was posted to this forum on 27 April 2009. Takabeg (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, confusing geometry (on ring near lower N) and incorrect bonding (on upper N), missing stereochemistry. File:Emetine.svg is fine replacement (I replaced *.wp, having trouble at id.wikt) DMacks (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry: the para C–O should be co-linear. Have a bunch of correct in Category:Hydroquinone DMacks (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The same geometric disasters as usual (non-tetrahedral sp3, non-planar benzene rings, etc.) DMacks (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The same geometric disasters as usual (non-tetrahedral sp3, non-planar benzene rings, etc.) DMacks (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The same geometric disasters as usual (non-tetrahedral sp3, non-planar sp2, trans alkenes in small rings, etc.) DMacks (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Source page has no indication at all that this file is anything but copyrighted. Esrever (klaT) 05:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Recent statue. No authorization from the author of the statue. - Zil (d) 06:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the image would have been in the public domain (i.e. published anonymously more than 70 years ago or that the author had died before 1945). Eleassar (t/p) 07:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the image would have been in the public domain (i.e. published anonymously more than 70 years ago or that the author had died before 1945). Eleassar (t/p) 08:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete most likely a copyvio --Miha (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the image was published anonymously more than 70 years ago or that the creator died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 08:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free licence plates, see w:Vehicle registration plates of New York#2001: The return of Empire State. Stefan4 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Not own work, same image is posted here in 2010, see File:Азербайджан флаг.jpg Smooth_O (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. It looks scanned image of newspaper, book etc... {{Own work}} claim is doubtful. Note: Ali Akbar Pakzad died in 1966. Takabeg (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The licence is a guess by the person who copied the image to Commons. The original uploader at Wikipedia never specified any licence.[1] Stefan4 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AUlucami.jpg&diff=439217229&oldid=273902430){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted anime Morning ☼ (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
1953 (or 1950/1951?) Brazilian film cover. Claim that this work is {{Attribution}} is not supported. Taken from (as indicated) cinemateca.gov.br (no "free" license visible). Director is Anelio Latini (IMDB) (1924–1986). Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. See also en:Karen Demirchyan Complex, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karen Demirchyan complex.jpg.
- File:Yerevan109-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan111-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan113-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan118-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan120-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan123-3.jpg
- File:Yerevan126-3.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and all the recent Armenian FOP cases. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. This building was designed by Mark Grigorian (1910-1977) and built in 1950.
- File:Armenian parliament building.jpg
- File:National Assembly of the RA.jpg
- File:Parliament Yerevan building.jpg
- File:Yerevan-Parliament-Armenia-2007-01.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
KEEP ALL The Armenian government does not maintain any copyright on the design of the said building, and therefore there is no copyright violation here. Serouj (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Restored since FoP-restrictions in Armenia have been lifted since late April 2013. Lymantria (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. This building was designed by Mark Grigorian (1910-1977) and built in 1953. Takabeg (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
no source, therefore license not solid 77.4.85.239 12:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. One source for this NASA Landsat image is [2]. As it's a NASA satellite photo, it was probably sourced from their website. It can be sourced from there now. The image pixel dimensions of the Wikimedia Commons file and the NASA website file match. I'll update the source details and description on the files Wikimedia Commons description page. GeoWriter (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be kept as this is a nomination for the Wikimedia commons picture of the year Thanks Georgeh109 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Source is provided and reference link works fine--ZonoZwo (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely keep; it's a featured image and a source is provided to clearly establish license. -- Beland (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
© All Rights Reserved by Bosnjak Branko: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3516330 Smooth_O (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral-author granted me usage of that image via fb. I had no ability to verify authorship, off course. Not sure even that even Branko Bošnjak is real copyright holder/author.Quahadi Añtó 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No use since uploader - likely no encyclopedic value. High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only image. Could be replaced with wiki-markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No use since uploader - likely no encyclopedic value. High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
copyright http://www.algerie360.com/sport/equipe-nationale-algerie/mechrara-et-tasfaout-des-lundi-a-marrakech/ and other sites with date 2011 Remy34 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Petr_Kotvald_-_podpis.png Dominik Mádl (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
per COM:DW Morning ☼ (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Remarkably low quality of a car of which there are scores of good photos mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Text is not eligible for copyright, but is it the logo? Ralgistalk 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the logo with the hearts and the hands are in PD. Ralgistalk 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=99412781&postcount=336 is the same user as the uploader to Commons, although the user name may suggest so. The building is probably too central to the image for COM:FOP#Philippines anyway. Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No educational value, not used on a user page. Possibly not the user as indicated from the description. Globe-trotter (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Immagine non necessaria Docfra (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
not interesting 151.48.178.68 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Not a reason to delete --moogsi·(blah) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I see that the uploader themself has originally tried to delete this. No reason was given then, either --moogsi·(blah) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
not interesting 151.48.223.26 12:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous discussions. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Why do you hate this picture so much? :( --moogsi (blah) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Comes from http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100401035656/http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/rewards/115366.htm but it clearly says on the sign on the photo that this was taken at the Puente Grande prison, which is in Mexico. It is thus much more likely that the photo was taken by the Mexican government and not by the US one. Stefan4 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a promo picture, user's only upload. grillo (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: mignews.com.ua (Source field of information template) allows reprinting of materials, whereas copyright holder (presumably, FIFA.com) states 'all rights reserved'. PICAWN (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Erroneous upload by greenhorn uploader (= me), using a 'test' account. In the meantime, a similar file (File:Gedenkstein Carl Leid Rehberge.jpg) with a 'real' account has been uploaded. Please also consider deleting this 'Oneisclapping' account. Oneisclapping (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Not in use. Aleix serra aril (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This image is copied from the book "Build A Better Athlete" without evidence of permission. Deli nk (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This image is copied from the book "Build A Better Athlete" without evidence of permission. Deli nk (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. The architect of the complex Baghdasar Arzoumanian died in 2001.
- File:Ararat brandy factory in Yerevan, Winter time.JPG
- File:AraratBrandyfactory VictoryBridge.JPG
- File:Yerevan Brandy Factory left wing.jpg
- File:Kev pic655.jpg
- File:Yerevan Brandy Company.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. Baghdasar Arzoumanian died in 2001.
- File:Erebuni Museum Front.JPG
- File:Erebuni Museum.jpg
- File:Erevan - Le musée de la forteresse d'Erébouni 01.JPG
- File:Frieze Erebuni Museum.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused blog logo INeverCry 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Cloudbound (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Gmaxwell (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 03:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Gmaxwell (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not used on other projects Gmaxwell (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - only upload of user INeverCry 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not used on other projects Gmaxwell (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 03:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; image of text— out of scope Gmaxwell (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and not used on other wikis Gmaxwell (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Unclear source information: Source only is "Fotograf" - which photographer is meant? Whose work is it? High Contrast (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The image is still available at lb:Fichier:Kettenuewen w.jpg where it says "Source:Fotograf lb:User:Les Meloures". I'd interpret this to mean that lb:Benutzer:Les Meloures is the photographer. However, the uploader is lb:Benotzer:Cornischong, so I assume that this needs evidence of permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That was exactly what I meant. Thank you for pointing it out more clearly. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is the problem on lb-wiki. They edit and improve the files and deletes the original without adding a good source. Les Meloures is an admin on lb-wiki and he is still active so unless we can find the photo ourself all we have to do is to ask him :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also active on Commons so I left a note. --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is the problem on lb-wiki. They edit and improve the files and deletes the original without adding a good source. Les Meloures is an admin on lb-wiki and he is still active so unless we can find the photo ourself all we have to do is to ask him :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That was exactly what I meant. Thank you for pointing it out more clearly. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I found the original - see File:Cattenom.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The picture was taken by me in the years 1990/1991 and Corischong photoshopped it a little. --Les Meloures (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you all for your great support! If there are no objections, I would close this discussion and we keep this interesting shot of course. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Originally marked as "copyvio", I consider this is not original enough to be under copyright. PD-textlogo for me. Fma12 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. {{PD-textlogo}} is for not for any logo; it's only for logos consisting of simple geometric shapes. The stylized globe with latitude and longitude lines in this logo is not a simple geometric shape. en:File:Continental Airlines Logo.svg is clearly marked as non-free. Is this file any different from File:Continental-Logo.svg, which has already been deleted twice (apart from being rasterized, of course)? While you're at it, go ahead and delete File:Continental-United Merger.jpg, which has lived on Commons without any sort of PD or licensing tag since 2010. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed there are many files inexplicably hosted on Commons, in some cases without a license or valid information and in other cases, remaining as clear copyright violations. In fact, I've been reporting many logos of this category as copyvios, some of them placed here more than 4 years ago. Fma12 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: the globe isnt realy simple JuTa 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Originally marked as "copyvio", I consider this is not original enough so the red cross is an universal symbol, not under copyright. PD-textlogo for me. Fma12 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The entire logo is not basic. Alan Lorenzo 
23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 22:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Originally marked as copyright violation, I think the copyright is not clear in this case... PD-textlogo maybe, unless China has a very low threshold of originality. Fma12 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. China does have a very low threshold of originality. {{PD-textlogo}} is only for logos consisting of simple geometric shapes. The artistic phoenix pattern in this logo is not a simple geometric shape. en:File:Air China Logo.svg is clearly marked as non-free. (And is this any different than the previously deleted File:Air China-logo.png)? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like scans of paper cards, so unlikely made by the uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, is there a problem with scanning playing cards? playing cards are public domain. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may not upload scans of copyrighted playing cards without permission from the one who drew the illustrations on the cards. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are these two images:
- They have been on this site for at least two years, so there certainly is no reason to take down my card image. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Now tagged {{subst:dw-nsd}} since the uploaders didn't provide any source information for the underlying cards. Without source information, it is not possible to determine whether they are old enough to be in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are some playing card designs which are so ubiquitous that it would be impossible to determine if there even is a copyright holder on them; the designs that Bicycle cards use, for instance, has turned up in hundreds of different manufacturers' cards, and who knows whether USPC/Bicycle was the first to use them, and who even holds the copyright.
- That aside, I am pretty sure that the cards pictured here are from the game show Card Sharks. That ace of spades looks like the one from Card Sharks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] (who seems to know more about playing cards than any one person really should), 07:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now tagged {{subst:dw-nsd}} since the uploaders didn't provide any source information for the underlying cards. Without source information, it is not possible to determine whether they are old enough to be in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1.Add just above the section head with the file in it.
Discussion has not been edited for over 2 weeks, no consensus to delete. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)|, Discussion has not been edited for over 2 weeks, no consensus to delete. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Reopening because of improper closure by the uploader. The uploader hasn't addressed any of the concerns in the nomination and the only reason for closing the nomination seems to be that it hasn't been edited for some time, so the original issues still remain. The uploader needs to show that the cards are in the public domain. Otherwise, the file has to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted
- First, it is completely inappropriate for the uploader to close a discussion of deletion of his own work. A DR should never be closed by an interested party, except that the nom may withdraw it.
- Second, if you're going to close DRs, please do it correctly. The tags {{Udelh}} and {{Udelf}} are for undeletions.
- As for the issue at hand, decks of cards are copyrighted. In particular, the design of this ace of spades is sufficiently different to pass the TOO. Also, this image is small and very poor quality, so even if copyright were not an issue, I might delete it on those grounds.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I was the one who messed up the templates. User:BuickCenturyDriver used {{subst:delh}} and {{subst:delf}}, and I accidentally used the wrong templates when unsubstituting them. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- No matter -- we all make mistakes. It took me a second try to get the {{Delf}} on this one.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Originally marked as "copyvio", I consider this is not original enough. PD-textlogo for me. Fma12 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. {{PD-textlogo}} applies to simple geometric shapes. I'm not sure which "simple geometric shape" this is supposed to be. en:File:Copa airlines logo.svg is clearly marked as non-free. Presumably, this is the same logo as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copa Airlines logo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copa Airlines Colombia logo.jpg (and if so, this should be speedy deleted and taken to Commons:Undeletion requests instead). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
comentario: if this logo is at english wikipedia no necessary is non-free see,my question is this free o non-free.--EEIM (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are many logos wrongly marked as "not free" on WP. The logo you mentioned could be transferred to Commons using toolserver. Fma12 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Originally marked as "copyvio", I consider this is not original enough. PD-textlogo for me. Fma12 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. {{PD-textlogo}} applies to simple geometric shapes. The maple leaf in en:File:Air Canada Logo.svg is not a simple geometric shape. The logo is marked as non-free on English Wikipedia for a reason, and rasterising and compressing the heck out of it doesn't change anything. That said, someone did copy it to File:Air Canada Logo.svg under {{PD-textlogo}}... —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The link you mentioned took me to a free image (obviously hosted here on Commons). Although the mapple leaf is not a "simply geometric shape", it is not under copyright and even has his own category here. So the logo should be kept. Fma12 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 10:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Low res, no exif, possibly a copyvio like other uploads by this user Darwin Ahoy! 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. © All Rights Reserved by Vae Isakhanian Takabeg (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete Clear copyvio. Takabeg, next time please use {{Copyvio}} in cases like this. Thanks, . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This file shows me. I did not give any permission to take this picture and/or put it on the internet. I am neither famous nor of any public interest - and I am not a real captain aswell. Please just delete this picture. 134.130.34.22 13:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This is in use on a user page. Think about whther you might know who en:User:JohnGreyDorian is --moogsi·(blah) 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Answer: No, I do not know, who user JohnGreyDorian is. The picture was taken while I was showing around some Russian exchange students in Bruges, Belgium - one of these guys must have taken the picture. I did not give any permission to either take this picture - nor to put it on the internet. Thus, the photographer is not the legal owner of the copyright of this picture. The usage of this picture on the user page is btw nonsense. In this context there is absolutely no need for a picture showing me. I really want this picture to be deleted right away - I would actually nominate it for speedy deletion (for violation of my personal rights), but since I am not related to Wikipedia in any way I do not know how that works. Admins: Please delete this picture. You also don't want to find illegal pictures of you connected to your name on some random internet site! I might get into job-related trouble, if you don't!
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 03:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - one of the graphs links to a sandbox that hasn't been edited since 5 March 2012, and the other graph links to a declined AFC - none of the logos is in use
- File:Micro Tech Global Foundation -MTGF.png
- File:Mtgf lo.png
- File:Mtgf logo.png
- File:SG logo.png
- File:MPL.png
- File:Micro Tech Global Foundation.png
- File:Secured Governance Framework.jpg
- File:Doc2.png
INeverCry 03:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, out of scope— permotionals, unused, and redundant Gmaxwell (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
- File:Oversoul sound ladio cast.jpg
- File:Eisuke oooka 2.jpg
- File:Photo 1月 21, 9 18 05.jpg
- File:Eisuke oooka 1.jpg
- File:Eisuke oooka.jpg
INeverCry 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, promotional images not used on other projects Gmaxwell (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by User:Fat Jenny claiming copyright ownership via the license and via Source in the Summary but the Summary says the Author is User:David Shankbone. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matt Sanchez by David Shankbone.jpg — Mike.lifeguard 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a picture of me that is very unflattering and I'd like it taken down. Jean2154 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:87th Infantry Regiment
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Slovenia in World War I: no reliable source indicating that the work was originally published anonymously more than 70 years ago or that the creator had died before 1945.
- File:87. celjski polk.jpg
- File:87. Pehotni polk.jpg
- File:87.polk.jpg
- File:87th Infantry Regiment in Albania.JPG
- File:87th regiment of Celje.jpg
- File:IR 87-Žalec.jpg
- File:Kreta2 055.JPG
- File:Na kopanju.jpg
- File:Na ladji.JPG
- File:Na usposabljanju .JPG
- File:Oprema je zbrana ob ladji .JPG
- File:Parade in Shkoder.JPG
- File:Podcastnik 87.polka.jpg
- File:Priprave na odhod.JPG
- File:Sub-officers of the 87th regiment.jpg
- File:Visoki obisk vojakov.jpg
- File:Vkrcanje na ladjo.JPG
- File:Vojaki 87. polka.jpg
- File:Vojaški tabor.JPG
- File:Častniki 87. polka.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Edward Ambarden (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios. Small sizes, no EXIF for most. And per upload log. Own work claim doubtful.
- File:Автомат К-3.jpg
- File:Пальмы.jpg
- File:Университет.jpg
- File:Степанакерт.jpg
- File:Степстадион.jpg (duplication of File:Stadium in Stepanakert.JPG by other user)
- File:Поррг.jpg
- File:Енкоп.jpg
- File:Улица города.jpg
- File:Квартал "Арцах".jpg
- File:Степанакерт 2.jpg
- File:Климат.jpg
- File:Гораванская пустыня.jpg
- Image in File:Stepsepstep.jpg
- Image in File:Երեւան.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I've forgotten adding this image. Takabeg (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster
- File:Wanted poster-Aum Shinrikyo Miki police station オウム真理教指名手配ポスター 三木警察署派出所 平田信逮捕 DSCF1674.JPG
- File:Wanted poster-Aum Shinrikyo Miki police station オウム真理教指名手配ポスター 三木警察署派出所 平田信逮捕 DSCF1670.JPG
- File:Wanted poster-Aum Shinrikyo Miki police station オウム真理教指名手配ポスター 三木警察署派出所 平田信逮捕 DSCF1672.JPG
- File:Wanted poster-Aum Shinrikyo Miki police station オウム真理教指名手配ポスター 三木警察署派出所 平田信逮捕 DSCF1671.JPG
- File:Takeshi Kitano of Port of Akashi,明石港 明石市岬町 北野たけし DSCF2064.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Images overwritten by uploader with comment "No author permission". It's unlikely that the uploader took the images himself, so it should be best to delete them. The one Text logo can also be deleted with out of COM:PS.
- File:Rob-dali3.jpg
- File:Rob-dali2.jpg
- File:Rob-dali.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-acting.jpg
- File:Acting-international-logo2.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-NPH.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-jouffroy.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-ginsberg.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-bofil.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-baldwin.jpg
- File:Robert-cordier-2010.jpg
- File:Acting-international1.jpg
Funfood ␌ 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sonny Samuel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Political posters are definitely not installed permanently as required by Commons:Freedom of panorama in Israel.
- File:Amram mitzna 2013.jpg
- File:Ayelet shaked 2013.jpg
- File:Naftali bennett 2013.jpg
- File:Halikud beitenu 2013.jpg
- File:Yesh Atid sign 2013.jpg
- File:Yes hatid support south lebanon IDF soldiers.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Official documents. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Old photos, unlikely to be own work
Gbawden (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Koikoidiamond (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images appear on Skyscrapercity, but the user name of the Skyscrapercity is similar to the user name of the Commons user, so they might be the same person. See below:
- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=d6198b3c2a6d6be2dee9ca8ae6febfde&p=95808033&postcount=26
- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=d6198b3c2a6d6be2dee9ca8ae6febfde&p=95840745&postcount=35
- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=98149869&postcount=205
- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=94171404&postcount=17210
All photos show the interior or exterior of recent buildings in the Philippines. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Northlink.jpg
- File:Skygarden.jpg
- File:City center facade.jpg
- File:SM city center new atrium.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Koikoidiamond (talk · contribs)
[edit]Some of these have already been deleted in the request above and can be deleted speedily. If the uploader disagrees with the deletion of the images, he should go to COM:UR instead of reposting the images.
All of them show the exterior or interior of recent buildings in the Philippines. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Sm north facade4.JPG
- File:Sm city north EDSA facade.JPG
- File:Smlgo.JPG
- File:Inz.JPG
- File:The Block Atrium.JPG
- File:Snenex.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rudolf Wacker
[edit]Some of these are from an unknown date ("20th century"). It is not known whether they were published before 1923 or not.
One of these is from "circa 1922". This could mean 1923.
The rest were made in 1923 or later. One file is listed as "own work by the uploader", but this is unlikely as the artist died several decades before it was possible to upload files to Commons.
Any paintings which weren't published before 1923 are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. All files have to be free in the United States.
- "20th century"
- File:Rudolf Wacker Hafeneinfahrt Lindau.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Junge.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Stilleben mit Säule.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Winterlandschaft.jpg
- File:Ruolf Wacker Skizze Putto.jpg
- 1918 (file name) or 1937 ({{Information}} template)
File:Rudolf Wacker Selbstporträt 1918.jpgobviously a typo --FA2010 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- circa 1922
- 1923
- 1924
- 1925
- File:Rudolf Wacker - Stehender Frauenakt (Ilse) 1925.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker - Stillleben mit zwei Krügen (Selbstbildnis mit Ilse und Puppe) 1925.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Ilse Wacker with Mask 1925.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Liegender weiblicher Akt 1925.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Stilleben mit Engel 1925.jpg
_1925.jpg){kind=link}
_1925.jpg){kind=link}
- 1926
- File:Rudolf Wacker Rosalie Haller 1926 b.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Rosalie Haller 1926.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker - Selbstbildnis mit orangefarbener Palette - 1926.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Bregenzer Achbrücke 1926.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Ilse 1926.jpg
- 1927
- File:Rudolf Wacker - Puppe und Interieur - 1927.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Häuserwinkel in Reutte 1927 VLM.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Selbstbildnis 1927.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Stilleben mit Gurke 1927.jpg
- 1928
- File:Rudolf Wacker Lindau Auf der Mauer II 1928.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Stilleben mit Haubensteissfuss.jpg
- File:Wacker hafen.jpg
- 1929
- 1931
- 1932
- 1934
- File:Rudolf Wacker Japanisches Püppchen und Mohn 1934.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Schäfchen und Puppe.jpg
- 1936
- 1937
- File:Rudolf Wacker Japanische Puppe 1937.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Japanische Puppe und Narzisse 1937.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Puppe im Kopfstand.jpg
- File:Rudolf Wacker Puppe.jpg
- File:Wacker Puppenköpfchen 1937.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Author is from Austria and died in 1939, long after 1926, so their works were still in copyright on Austria's URAA date of 1996. I see no errors in the above other than the file already struck by FA2010. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pamee AmbieLiu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable "own work" and appears to be copyright vio. Doubtful that member of South Korean boy band Shinee, posed for uploader to produce photoshoot/professional quality works. Even if 'Shinee lucifer.jpg' is a composite of uploader's own work, the original images are copyrighted. If not would like to see original EXIF data of images with details of when, where etc photos were taken.
Michaela den (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
duplicate of File:1958 Bel Air Impala.jpg with mysterious white field added mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:58 Bel Air Impala - dock.jpg just looks to me like an uncropped version of File:1958 Bel Air Impala.jpg. I can't see what you're talking about --moogsi·(blah) 20:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It took me a minute to realize, but the only reason the image I nominated for deletion is slightly wider is because there is a white field added to the right side of the picture. I added the picture here, to make it more clear. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. Definitely wasn't paying attention, there. What I meant by 'uncropped' is it does have slightly more of the original image at the top and bottom. Maybe not enough to prefer it over the other one, though --moogsi (blah) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Uploaded the slightly larger picture to the other one. Good call. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. Definitely wasn't paying attention, there. What I meant by 'uncropped' is it does have slightly more of the original image at the top and bottom. Maybe not enough to prefer it over the other one, though --moogsi (blah) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It took me a minute to realize, but the only reason the image I nominated for deletion is slightly wider is because there is a white field added to the right side of the picture. I added the picture here, to make it more clear. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This book is a duplicate of this one. They come from different sources and are of different file formats but this one has no useful OCR layer so we decided on Wikisource to use the djvu version instead. There is no reason to keep this one around. Bjarki S (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not simple enough to be in PD. Besides, it is also tagged under FAL (perhaps the uploader doesn't understand the nature of this license) Ralgistalk 17:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality --EEIM (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Sorry, this logo is constructed from geometric shapes (parallelograms to be more specific). I do not see why this nomination?.
Juancameneses11 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:Penguin-lifecycle-es.svg
- File:Penguins meet and talk small fish, big fish.svg
- File:Penguin-lifecycle-lv.svg
- File:Penguin-lifecycle-de.svg
- File:Penguin-lifecycle-blank.jpg
- File:Manchot-fr.jpg
Derivative of a deleted image 125.25.145.58 17:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You mean Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. It would be nice to consolidate all of these together... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why original image was deleted? AFAIK it was Featured picture. --Kikos (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally: this is NOT a photography and can't be made in "free time" or "coffee break" and should be definitely placed under {{PD-USGov-NSF}}. --Kikos (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the older discussion, it was noted that the credit format "XY, National Science Foundation" didn't mean XY worked for the NSF (a semicolon probably would have avoided the confusion). In this case, however, it appears Zina Deretsky did work as a Medical, science & technology illustrator for the NSF. Not sure if this explicitly makes him a federal employee. In any case, if it can be determined that File:PENGUIN LIFECYCLE H.JPG should have been PD-USGov, it should be restored. --125.25.145.58 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Merged discussions --125.25.145.58 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status: COM:PCP FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Restored -- the creator of the base image, Zina Deretsky, was at the time an NSF employee, see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/zina-deretsky/59/225/49. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Originally marked as "copyvio", it should be discussed. Design is not basic. Alan Lorenzo 20:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio: source1 / image1 OR source2 / image2. (Undo edit diff)
- Design is not simple. Isn't a basic "O" with "e" inside. Alan Lorenzo 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
From the picture it looks like this is a screenshot from a television broadcast/internet stream, rather than the work of the uploader. Image also doesn't have any EXIF data. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 21:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Could just be taken with a bad phone camera. The user's other uploads look that way --moogsi (blah) 02:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Though photographs commissioned by the Ministry of Information of Cecil's during WWII would be Crown Copyright (and now public domain), this particular photograph was taken in 1953 and the image is marked by the NPG as "(c) Cecil Beaton Studio Archive, Sotheby's London". If this portrait was originally commissioned for the UK Government, it will be PD, however more evidence than appears on the NPG website source needs to be provided. Fæ (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
PD-old is obviously wrong considering that the photographer is not given. Neither photographer nor applicable jurisdiction (in what country was the photography taken?) are given, and it could still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Indeed, we don't know the author and country of origin, thus several licenses possibly apply, like {{Anonymous-EU}} or even {{PD-Rus-Empire}} (by comparing with his other photos I'd say it is taken before 1917). There is evidence of publication by the Nobel Foundation, and no evidence of independent authored publication by any other party, thus maybe {{PD-Sweden-photo}} would be better. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another possible license is that the image is still copyrighted. You as uploader placed an obviously incorrect PD tag for this image. It is your duty to prove which PD tag exactly applies (if any), or the image has to be deleted. As a start, you could check what the given "Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967" publication states about the copyright. Adrian Bunk (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The source says that he is "wanted", meaning that it is very likely that the image wasn't taken by the US government but found somewhere else by the government. Stefan4 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The fact that it says "wanted" does not mean at all that the image wasn't taken by the US government. The nominator is assuming that for the photo to be PD it must have been taken by the Feds (Wrong), and that for a photo to be taken by the Feds, the Feds must first located the criminal (Wrong), and --Stefan then reasons-- that if the Feds located the criminal, then why post the "Wanted" notice to start with? (Wrong again, faulty logic).
- Taking a photo is not the only way the Fed can own the copyright to a photo.
- For a photo to be shoot by the Feds, the Feds do not first have to locate the individual pre-arrest.
- And locating a criminal does not automatically imply you are going to arrest him and take him into custody into the US.
The nominator is confusing image possession and image ownership. And image ownership is what has any copyright implications. The nominator also presumes that the only way the US government can claim ownership of a photo (and as such the image become PD) is by taking (as in "shooting") the photo itself. This is just not the case.
There are many ways the U.S. may come to own photos of foreign nationals way before it would have a -need- to arrest them. Pre-arrest photos may come from video supplied to the Feds by the criminal himself, as it happened HERE; from cameras confiscated by the Feds, as it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE; from previous arrests by the Feds, such as illegal border crossing (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), and gang activities (like this other pre-arrest Feds photo HERE); from mugshots taken when the subject was in federal custody but subsequently comitted another crime while out on bond (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), while on parole as with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE, or from escaping a US prison, like it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE. The US routinely collaborates with the Mexican government in undercover activities (See HERE). So a bit more research would also uncover that the Feds also own pictures of foreign nationals obtained -- pre-arrest -- as a result of Federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering investigative actities. In any event, I am not saying that it is known to me that this photo is in fact from any of these sources I covered above. What I am saying is that if the US govt published this photo, then it -must- have come from a source that would have made the photo property of the Feds and, thus, public domain. Stefan is assumming that every pre-arrest "Wanted" photo was not taken by the Feds; I am saying, "Wrong. That is not only speculation, but it is also false (as I proved above)". Stefan is also assuming that every pre-arrest photo is not owned by the Feds, and thus not PD, and I am saying "Wrong again. That assumotion is the least likely of speculative scenario. The most likely scenario is that the Feds do own the photos and this is why they don't display a copyright notice with the photos - they cannot display a copyright notice if they own the photos! They are PD because --whether or not the Feds took the shots themselves-- they are owned by the Federal Government, and are thus PD." Pictures of criminals come from a variety of sources, but ultimately if the US government publishes them, the US is doing so because it owns them. That is, I believe the US Govt acts in accordance with U.S. Law (including Copyright Law), whereas for Stefan's premise to stand it is clear he believes the US Govt is in violation of its own laws by publishing pictures it doesn't own. My argument is that a law-abiding federal govt is a more plausible belief than to expeculate -- as Stefan is doing -- that the US govt "found them somewhere", and that then it can somehow -- without impunity-- publish them without including even a copyright notice to the effect that the photo is under someone else's copyright. This would be quite a unbelievable.
To support Stefan's nomination rationale, you would have to support that in seeking criminals the US govt is above the law of the land, and this just isn't the case. There is International Law that limits the Feds powers on non-US citizens criminals in foreign jurisdictions. Again, I would tend to believe that if the US published a photo, it is because it had a right to do so.
Additionally, an assumption Stefan is making is that the holder of the copyright is automatically always the organization that *took* the photo versus the organization that *published* the photo. That is not always the case either. Just like editors transfer their copyrights to Wikipedia when donating a photo they took, so do authors transfer their copyright to a federal agency when they donate a picture that the Feds subsequently publish. Such publishing act is what puts this photo in the public domain. (See HERE)
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- The US federal government can't hold the copyright to a photo by taking a photo since photos taken by the US government are in the public domain. If the photo was taken by someone else, then the photo is protected by copyright unless the copyright holder voluntarily releases the photo to the public domain. If you transfer the copyright to a photo to the US government, then the photo remains copyrighted with the US government as the copyright holder, requiring permission from the US government if you wish to use the photo. {{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government. There is no evidence that this is the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are stating that "The US federal government can't hold the copyright to a photo by taking a photo since photos taken by the US government are in the public domain", when I have not made a statement to the contrary... In any event, I don't mean to be offensive, but the statements above all sound like speculatory rethoric to me. First, the US Govt (and in particular the Justice Department!) *can* and *does* become the copyright holder in many, many ways -- not just through someone, officially and ceremonially, making a peaceful and voluntary copyright transfer to the Feds. (THIS link provides at least 12 such other ways... with plenty of sample government photos.)
Your statement above that "[If] the US government [becomes] the copyright holder, [then it would require] permission from the US government if you wish to use the photo", begs the question, "Then why isn't the photo currently displayed in the Govt website not marked '(C) copyrighted'???" We can't have it both ways, Stefan, claiming that the photo on that Government website is copyrighted, yet providing only irrelevant statements and rhetoric -- instead of one piece of evidence -- as to why the Government chose to leave the photo without the usual "(C) Copyright. All Rights Reserved" mark.
And finally, we can't become obfuscated by pressing-on with irrelevant statements ("{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government") that dwell on the assumption that the Government itself took/shot the photo when we both agree the Govt probably didn't. This discussion deals with the faulty assumption being made that the pic is copyrighted because it wasn't shot by the Feds, when common sense dictates that we should be focused on the fact that this photo is -not- copyrighted, and the proof is that it is not marked "(C) Copyright. All Rights Reserved" in the source government website. The only plausible explanation that your position could reasonably provide is that "well... the photo is copyrighted, and the US Govt holds the copyright to it, BUT they just forgot to say so in their website," and I don't subscribe to that spectacular position: The Govt knows the law, and what they are supposed to do and not do, and they -very rarely- deviate from following the law. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- It is unclear why you think that the statement "{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government" is irrelevant since you seem to agree that the US government probably didn't take the photo. If the US government didn't take the photo, then you can't use {{PD-USGov}} for the photo! You can only use {{PD-USGov}} if you can prove that the photo was taken by the US government, as stated in the template: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." Copyright notices haven't had any legal meaning in the United States since 1 March 1989, and I would assume that a police officer would be more interested in catching the guys than adding copyright notices. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No Stefan, it is not that cut and dry.
- The photo in question came from the U.S. State Department's website. The following information comes from the U.S. State Department's website HERE:
- "Photographs on this site are in the public domain unless a copyright is indicated. Only public domain photos can be reproduced without permission. Citation of this source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce copyrighted photos must be sought from the original source.
- A copyright is not indicated in the photo in question, as a result the photo is not copyrighted and in the poblic domain.
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- One person wrote http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm and one person (probably not the same person) uploaded the photos to the website. There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the photo has read http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm or that he was authorised to release the photos to the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, frankly Stefan, you could speculate and concoct all sorts of strange new suppositions why the photo should not be kept, even these new suppositions that have nothing to do with the initial nomination above and which are found nowhere in Wikipedia policy, but which are of your own making. On the other hand, I have presented facts, not speculation. I have presented unmistakable facts that prove the photo is in the public domain. This is not speculation. Per the U.S. State Dept -- which has had more time, budget and personnel than you have had to look into this matter -- the photo is in the public domain. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message
Deleted: Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 03:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100401035646/http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/rewards/133310.htm says that he's wanted, so the image was probably not taken by the US government but by someone else. Stefan4 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The fact that it says "wanted" does not automatically mean at all that the image wasn't taken by the US government. The nominator is assuming that for the photo to be PD it must have been taken by the Feds (Wrong), and that for a photo to be taken by the Feds, the Feds must first located the criminal (Wrong), and --Stefan then reasons-- that if the Feds located the criminal, then why post the "Wanted" notice to start with? (Wrong again, faulty logic).
- Taking a photo is not the only way the Fed can own the copyright to a photo.
- For a photo to be shoot by the Feds, the Feds do not first have to locate the individual pre-arrest.
- And locating a criminal does not automatically imply you are going to arrest him and take him into custody into the US.
The nominator is confusing image possession and image ownership. And image ownership is what has any copyright implications. The nominator also presumes that the only way the US government can claim ownership of a photo (and as such the image become PD) is by taking (as in "shooting") the photo itself. This is just not the case.
There are many ways the U.S. may come to own photos of foreign nationals way before it would have a -need- to arrest them. Pre-arrest photos may come from video supplied to the Feds by the criminal himself, as it happened HERE; from cameras confiscated by the Feds, as it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE; from previous arrests by the Feds, such as illegal border crossing (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), and gang activities (like this other pre-arrest Feds photo HERE); from mugshots taken when the subject was in federal custody but subsequently comitted another crime while out on bond (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), while on parole as with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE, or from escaping a US prison, like it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE. The US routinely collaborates with the Mexican government in undercover activities (See HERE). So a bit more research would also uncover that the Feds also own pictures of foreign nationals obtained -- pre-arrest -- as a result of Federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering investigative actities. In any event, I am not saying that it is known to me that this photo is in fact from any of these sources I covered above. What I am saying is that if the US govt published this photo, then it -must- have come from a source that would have made the photo property of the Feds and, thus, public domain. Stefan is assumming that every pre-arrest "Wanted" photo was not taken by the Feds; I am saying, "Wrong. That is not only speculation, but it is also false (as I proved above)". Stefan is also assuming that every pre-arrest photo is not owned by the Feds, and thus not PD, and I am saying "Wrong again. That assumotion is the least likely of speculative scenario. The most likely scenario is that the Feds do own the photos and this is why they don't display a copyright notice with the photos - they cannot display a copyright notice if they own the photos! They are PD because --whether or not the Feds took the shots themselves-- they are owned by the Federal Government, and are thus PD." Pictures of criminals come from a variety of sources, but ultimately if the US government publishes them, the US is doing so because it owns them. That is, I believe the US Govt acts in accordance with U.S. Law (including Copyright Law), whereas for Stefan's premise to stand it is clear he believes the US Govt is in violation of its own laws by publishing pictures it doesn't own. My argument is that a law-abiding federal govt is a more plausible belief than to expeculate -- as Stefan is doing -- that someone took the picture, someone holds copyright to the picture, and that even the US govt is in violation of the law by posting photos that it knows are not owned by the Feds and then -- without impunity-- published them without including even a copyright notice to the effect that the photo is under someone else's copyright. This would be quite a unbelievable.
To support Stefan's nomination rationale, you would have to support that in seeking criminals the US govt is above the law of the land, and this just isn't the case. There is International Law that limits the Feds powers on non-US citizens criminals in foreign jurisdictions. Again, I would tend to believe that if the US published a photo, it is because it had a right to do so.
Additionally, an assumption Stefan is making is that the holder of the copyright is automatically always the organization that *took* the photo versus the organization that *published* the photo. That is not always the case either. Just like editors transfer their copyrights to Wikipedia when donating a photo they took, so do authors transfer their copyright to a federal agency when they donate a picture that the Feds subsequently publish. Such publishing act is what puts this photo in the public domain. (See HERE)
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- The US federal government can't hold the copyright to a photo by taking a photo since photos taken by the US government are in the public domain. If the photo was taken by someone else, then the photo is protected by copyright unless the copyright holder voluntarily releases the photo to the public domain. If you transfer the copyright to a photo to the US government, then the photo remains copyrighted with the US government as the copyright holder, requiring permission from the US government if you wish to use the photo. {{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government. There is no evidence that this is the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are stating that "The US federal government can't hold the copyright to a photo by taking a photo since photos taken by the US government are in the public domain", when I have not made a statement to the contrary... In any event, I don't mean to be offensive, but the statements above all sound like speculatory rethoric to me. First, the US Govt (and in particular the Justice Department!) *can* and *does* become the copyright holder in many, many ways -- not just through someone, officially and ceremonially, making a peaceful and voluntary copyright transfer to the Feds. (THIS link provides at least 12 such other ways... with plenty of sample government photos.)
Your statement above that "[If] the US government [becomes] the copyright holder, [then it would require] permission from the US government if you wish to use the photo", begs the question, "Then why isn't the photo currently displayed in the Govt website not marked '(C) copyrighted'???" We can't have it both ways, Stefan, claiming that the photo on that Government website is copyrighted, yet providing only irrelevant statements and rhetoric -- instead of one piece of evidence -- as to why the Government chose to leave the photo without the usual "(C) Copyright. All Rights Reserved" mark.
And finally, we can't become obfuscated by pressing-on with irrelevant statements ("{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government") that dwell on the assumption that the Government itself took/shot the photo when we both agree the Govt probably didn't. This discussion deals with the faulty assumption being made that the pic is copyrighted because it wasn't shot by the Feds, when common sense dictates that we should be focused on the fact that this photo is -not- copyrighted, and the proof is that it is not marked "(C) Copyright. All Rights Reserved" in the source government website. The only plausible explanation that your position could reasonably provide is that "well... the photo is copyrighted, and the US Govt holds the copyright to it, BUT they just forgot to say so in their website," and I don't subscribe to that spectacular position: The Govt knows the law, and what they are supposed to do and not do, and they -very rarely- deviate from following the law. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- It is unclear why you think that the statement "{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photo was taken by a person employed by the US federal government as part of the employee's official duty as an employee of the US federal government" is irrelevant since you seem to agree that the US government probably didn't take the photo. If the US government didn't take the photo, then you can't use {{PD-USGov}} for the photo! You can only use {{PD-USGov}} if you can prove that the photo was taken by the US government, as stated in the template: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." Copyright notices haven't had any legal meaning in the United States since 1 March 1989, and I would assume that a police officer would be more interested in catching the guys than adding copyright notices. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No Stefan, it is not that cut and dry.
- The photo in question came from the U.S. State Department's website. The following information comes from the U.S. State Department's website HERE:
- "Photographs on this site are in the public domain unless a copyright is indicated. Only public domain photos can be reproduced without permission. Citation of this source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce copyrighted photos must be sought from the original source.
- A copyright is not indicated in the photo in question, as a result the photo is not copyrighted and in the public domain.
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- One person wrote http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm and one person (probably not the same person) uploaded the photos to the website. There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the photo has read http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm or that he was authorised to release the photos to the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, frankly Stefan, you could speculate and concoct all sorts of strange new suppositions why the photo should not be kept, even these new suppositions that have nothing to do with the initial nomination above and which are found nowhere in Wikipedia policy, but which are of your own making. On the other hand, I have presented facts, not speculation. I have presented unmistakable facts that prove the photo is in the public domain. This is not speculation. Per the U.S. State Dept -- which has had more time, budget and personnel than you have had to look into this matter -- the photo is in the public domain. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message
Deleted: Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 03:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Armenia. Baghdasar Arzoumanian died in 2001.
- File:Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia, Yerevan, Armenia.jpg
- File:The Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia district, Yerevan, Armenia adjusted.JPG
- File:The Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia district, Yerevan, Armenia.jpg
- File:Malatia-Sebastia panorama.jpg
- File:Yerevan Holy Trinity Church.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- No de minimis for the panorama? Sardur (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:The Holy Trinity Church, Malatia-Sebastia district, Yerevan, Armenia adjusted.JPG. It is n important modern work, representative of modern architecture of the region and the continuing tradition of Eastern Christian architecture in general. As such, this file is in current use in an article, having been cropped and formatted for that specific purpose.
- If the file is deleted from Commons, then I propose that this particular picture be uploaded to Wikipedia under "Fair use" , on the grounds that it is very hard to find a good representative example like this.
- Amandajm (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say File:Malatia-Sebastia panorama.jpg is fine due to the building only being a small part of the image. Such photos are fine in most countries due to COM:DM. Delete the rest, unfortunately. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Armenia. One kept per DM FASTILY (TALK) 04:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Those fictional flag and coat of arm do not show much educational value required by the project scope. Mys 721tx (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The "Morning Cloud Empire" (朝雲帝國) seems to have a Facebook account. Is that all? I have never heard of the country before. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No scope 191.126.33.204 13:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico
[edit]http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070418201446/http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/dea/product/pr980602.htm says that they were arrested by the Mexican police and not by the US one. This means that the photos probably were taken by the Mexican government and that the {{PD-USGov}} claims are wrong.
Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico
[edit]The above images are or were used by the US government because the people depicted are or were wanted by the police, but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government. The claims that the photos were taken by the US government are therefore dubious. It is more likely that the US government found the images at some unidentified source.
- File:Arellano-Felix Cartel 2009 (cropped out Fernando Sanchez-Arellano).jpg
- File:Caroquintero.png
- File:Coronel-Villareal.jpg
- File:Edgar Barbie Valdez-2.jpg
- File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG
- File:Eduardo Arellano Félix.png
- File:Flavio Mendez-Santiago.jpg
- File:Floresbrothers.jpg
- File:Franciscoarellanofelix.png
- File:Ivan Velazquez-Caballero.jpg
- File:Juan Jose Esparragoza-Moreno.jpg
- File:Miguel Caro-Quintero.jpg
- File:Miguelangelfelixgallardo.png
- File:Raul Lucio Fernandez-Lechuga.jpg
- File:Teodoro Garcia Simental.jpg
- File:Vicente Carrillo Fuentes (narcotraficante).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I can understand that the argument Stenfan is making ("they were arrested by the Mexican police and not by the US one. This means that the photos probably were taken by the Mexican government and that the {{PD-USGov}} claims are wrong") could possibly apply to the 2 files for Luis and Jesus Amezcua (File:Jesus Amezcua.gif and File:Luis Amezcua.gif) listed further above, because they are images of the two individuals that the WayBack link mentions by name as having been captured by Mexican law enforcement. But the WayBack link does not name any of the other individuals in the list of 16 images immediately above from here, and which are also being bundled into this same nomination. The nomination is extrapolating to every other Mexican war lord image the unrelated WayBack link and that, IMO, is not a reasonable deduction.
- This nomination needs to take into account that the US possesses some of the most powerful, ingeneous, comprehensive and resourceful information-gathering, spy, and crime-investigating machines in the world. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to know this means that it rarely goes to others to get anything, instead others generally come to it to get things like photos and information. As such, to say that "It is more likely that the US government *found* the images at some unidentified source" is not a valid delete rationale: it is dubious at best and naive at worst.
- It is also widely known that the US collaborates with Mexican authorities in apprehending Mexican criminals wanted by the US and that the US provides intelligence (and this is not limited to pictures, photos, images, etc) of such criminals to the Mexican government. (See, for example, HERE and HERE) As such, to claim that "The above images are or were used by the US government because the people depicted are or were wanted by the police, but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government" is, again, naive at best. For one thing, if the Federal Government site has the image at its site, it is likely they are implying is that the photos were taken covertly by the US Federal Government (possibly on Mexican soil, where the US was under no jurisdiction to make an arrest).
- The claim "but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government" would be incorrect on the basis that files File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG and File:Floresbrothers.jpg are clearly mugshots.
- The claim that "the US government found the images at some unidentified source" appears to imply that the images were taken by Mexican authorities, but there is a problem with that presumption because we can observe that all of the images (except, again, for these two: File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG and File:Floresbrothers.jpg) are not mugshot images, and, as such, those other 14 non-mugshot images couldn't have been taken at the time of their arrest by the Mexican (or any other) police to begin with.
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- Well, if the US government was able to locate the criminals in order to take photos of them, then why didn't they arrest the criminals at the same time or ask the Mexican authorities to do that if the criminals were in Mexico? All of the files in the second nomination have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught. File:Floresbrothers.jpg could just as well be a passport photo or something. It says that File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG was arrested at some earlier point too, but it doesn't say where he was arrested or by whom the photo was taken. US government websites use images from various sources, not only images taken by the government itself. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, maybe you did not understand my comments. I will use an analogous question to clarify and, at the same time, answer your "why-didn't-they-arrest-the-criminals-at-the-same-time" question, and my question is this:
If the US government was able to locate Osama Bin Laden in order to take photos of him, then why didn't the US arrest him at the same time?
As you can see, the point is that we cannot assume the US first needs to locate a criminal before they can own a picture of him, as you are implying. You are assuming that for the US govt to own a picture of a criminal it must have first -located- the criminal, and this is not always the case and, possibly, this is probably most often -not- the case.
There are many ways the U.S. may come to own photos of foreign nationals way before it would have a -need- to arrest them. Pre-arrest photos may come from video supplied to the Feds by the criminal himself, as it happened HERE; from cameras confiscated by the Feds, as it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE; from previous arrests by the Feds, such as illegal border crossing (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), and gang activities (like this other pre-arrest Feds photo HERE); from mugshots taken when the subject was in federal custody but subsequently comitted another crime while out on bond (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), while on parole as with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE, or from escaping a US prison, like it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE. As I said, the US routinely collaborates with the Mexican government in such undercover activities (See HERE). So a bit more research would also uncover that the Feds also own pictures of foreign nationals obtained -- pre-arrest -- as a result of Federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering investigative actities. In any event, I am not saying that it is known to me that these 16 pictures above are indeed from any of these sources I covered above. What I am saying is that if the US govt published those photos, then they -must- have come from sources that would make the photos property of the Feds and, thus, public domain. You are assumming that every pre-arrest photo was not taken by the Feds; I am saying, "Wrong. That is not only speculation, but it is also false (as I proved above)". You are also assuming that every pre-arrest photo was not owned by the Feds, and thus not PD, and I am saying "Wrong. That is the least likely of speculative scenarios. The most likely scenario is that the Feds own the photos and this is why they don't display a copyright notice with the photos - they cannot display a copyright notice because the photos are not copyrighted. They are PD because --whether or not theFeds took the shots themselves-- they are owned by the Federal Government, and are thus PD." Pictures of criminals come from a variety of sources -- yes. But ultimately if the US government publishes them, I would also believe, the US is doing so because it owns the photo. That is, I believe the US Govt acts in accordance with U.S. Law (including Copyright Law), whereas for your premise to stand you would have to believe the US Govt is in violation of its own laws by publishing pictures it doesn't own. My argument is that a law-abiding federal govt is a more plausible belief than to expeculate -- as you are doing -- that the US govt "found the images at some unidentified source", and that then it can somehow -- without impunity-- publish them without including even a copyright notice to the effect that the photo is under someone else's copyright. This would be quite a unbelievable.
To support your nomination rationale, you would have to support that in seeking criminals the US govt is above the law of the land, and this just isn't the case. There is International Law that limits the Feds powers on non-US citizens criminals in foreign jurisdictions. Again, I would tend to believe that if the US published a photo, it is because it had a right to do so. Your statement "US government websites use images from various sources, not only images taken by the government itself", not only fails to provide a citation for support, but also seems to be saying that the US would be guilty of violating its own copyright laws by using images that it does not legitimately own. To me, that (not your statement, but what it would imply) would be dubious at best.
Additionally, an assumption you are making is that the holder of the copyright is automatically always the organization that *took* the photo versus the organization that *published* the photo. That is not always the case either. Just like editors transfer their copyrights to Wikipedia when donating a photo they took, so do authors transfer their copyright to a federal agency when they donate a picture that the Feds subsequently publish. Such publishing act is what puts the image in the public domain. (See HERE)
Finally, for a photo from a US Government site to be PD, the requirement is not, as you are assuming, that the photo was taken by the US Government. The requirement is that the photo was "prepared by". Work can be prepared by law enforcement (DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc) without it having been directly involved in the actual shooting of photos. {{PD-USGov}} doesn't say anywhere that work must have been personally performed by, or that photos must have been directly "shot by", but that the work must have been "prepared by".
And lastly you have three statements that are incorrect:
- "All of the files in the second nomination have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught." - Actually, none of the files in your nomination have links going to pages that state that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught. Your assumption there is incorrect. To be fair - even credible-, at a minimum, you should provide links to such alleged pages with the exact wording that you are allegedly using to support your claims. Of course, you did not provide this information because (without intending any offense to you) it is actually mere speculation without any factual data to support it.
- "The File:Floresbrothers.jpg could just as well be a passport photo or something" - well that photo is not "a passport photo or something". Again, your statemenst are speculation. The photos of the Flores Brothers are U.S. DOJ/U.S. Marshalls Office photos at the time of their arrest; for proof, read HERE, where it states, "In 2008, the Flores twins were indicted in Chicago and began secretly cooperating with [Federal] law enforcement" and see HERE (Pedro) AND HERE (Margarito).
- "It says that File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG was arrested at some earlier point too, but it doesn't say where he was arrested or by whom the photo was taken." - The file description page does not say anything of the sort. What it does say is "This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.". Since Edgar Barbie Valdez's photo is not an official Congressional portrait, nor (likely) a photo taken by an official employee of the Congress, what the justification template is saying is that the photo of Edgar Barbie Valdez "has been released into the public domain." Congress knows this, because Valdez is a U.S. citizen (See HERE), who was first arrested by U.S. authorities in Texas when he was 19, and then went to live illegally in Mexico. Asisted by using the arrest photo provided them by the US authorities and other intelligence, the Mexicans eventually arrested Valdez in Mexico on drug charges and, knowing the photo was a federal mugshot and thus PD, Congress re-published his photo on its website (he is still wanted in the US). (See HERE for the facts).
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- And above you have three points with incorrect statements:
- All of the files in the second nomination do indeed have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught, although you have to use the Internet Archive for most of the links in order to find the source. The exception would be the mistake below.
- I missed that the article in which the images were used wasn't about the persons depicted. Yes, these photos are more likely to be government works.
- The source says this: "“La Barbie,” head of the Sinaloa enforcers alleged to have killed members of Zetas". The text provides no information about the photographer or the photographer's employment status. You listed a page which says that the person was arrested in Texas at the age of 19. Was he arrested by federal police or by state police? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stefan, as for #1 you really need to stop standing on a soapbox. What is needed is actual proof or -- at least -- evidence, of your allegations. So far are just repeating yourself ad nuseum. So we can discuss intelligently, perhaps you would care to provide actual links in support of your suspicions and allegations instead of vague references?
- As for #2, I see you are finally admitting that your research, prior to you mass nominations, was incomplete and faulty.
- As for #3, you are again speculating. Nowhere have you uncovered that the photograpgh has been copyrighted by anyone; on the contrary, the site where it is posted states that the photo "has been released into the public domain".
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
There are a lot of possible options here. Some examples:
- The photos might have been taken by someone else but confiscated by the US government.
- The photos might have been taken by the Mexican authorities and provided to the US government.
- The photos might have been taken by friends or family and provided to the US government.
{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of the person's official duties as a US government employee. If the photos were taken by someone who wasn't employed by the US federal government, then the photos are protected by copyright, although the US government might be the copyright holder. See s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." A claim that the photos were taken by the US government simply because the photos appear on a website operated by the US government isn't really credible in a case like this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your 3 statements above, plus "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise", all support my position that insofar as the US government is the copyright holder, that's all that's required to make a photo PD (except if they especifically label a photo copyrighted); otherwise the US Govt would had marked the photos "copyrighted" in their websites. The only plausible explanation that your position could reasonably provide is that "those 16 photos are copyrighted, the US Govt holds the copyrights, BUT they just forgot to say so in their websites." I don't subscribe to that. The Govt knows the law and they very rarely deviate from following it.
- Additionally, your statement that "{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of the person's official duties as a US government employee" is incorrect because you have changed {{PD-USGov}} to "the photos were taken by" from the "prepared by" wording. Your interpretation goes beyond what the very clear language of the template states "work was prepared by". You need to stick to that language and defend your nomination using language from the {{PD-USGov}} template, not your own changed language.
- And finally, bringing Section 106 into this discussion is irrelevant as the {{PD-USGov}} template does not mention Section 106 at all. It says: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.". You need to defend your nomination based on the language of the {{PD-USGov}} template, the template being used to claim PD status for those 16 photos. So, No, I am Not going to see Section 16 becasue Section 16 has nothing to do with this.
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- The {{PD-USGov}} template is very clear: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." Either you show that the photos were "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" as required by the template, or the images need to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course Section 105 is very clear; it is clear to those of us who read it to mean what it was intended to mean: a balancing act between the rights of the copyright holder and the needs of the user. The problem is that there are always folks who hold extremist views of the law, and see the law only in black and white. You are giving Section 105 your own interpretation. How? Well you are, again, assuming that the phrase "because it is a work prepared" (from Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code) means "that the photos were taken by" as you said in your opening line. Nowhere does Section 105 mention the word "taken". You are changing the word "prepared" with your own word "taken". This is not the way that the {{PD-USGov}} template works, Stefan. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.
- All we know is that the U.S. published them and did not provide any other copyright holders because they own the pictures. Are you implying that the United States government failed to address the true copyright holders and is not acting in accordance with U.S. copyright laws? That doesn't make any sense. ComputerJA (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The United States government does not provide any other copyright holders. In addition, many of the men in the most-wanted poster are also considered U.S. fugitives, so I'm sure that the US government might have collaborated with the Mexican authorities to come up with these pictures. I've been given no good reason to believe that there is another copyright holder besides the United States; if there were, the page would have stated it. ComputerJA (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, lumping all these 16 images together when they originated at different sites is not the way to go. I think the correct way to determine if any of these are copyrighted is to first look at the source of each of the photos individually and determine what the site states regarding the individual picture's copyright status. Here is what you will find:
- A derivative of THIS DOJ poster, thus Original Source = DOJ
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from HERE, according to this page HERE, thus Original Source = DOJ
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from HERE, according to THIS page, thus Original Source = State Department
- The following information comes from the U.S. State Department's website HERE:
- "Photographs on this site are in the public domain unless a copyright is indicated. Only public domain photos can be reproduced without permission. Citation of this source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce copyrighted photos must be sought from the original source."
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not marked with "a copyright".
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- A derivative from the one below, so also came from U.S. House of Representatives.
- Most US HOR sites ([3][4][5]) state this identical message: "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and is not copyrighted]." As such, by extrapolation, it is reasonable to believe that their over-arching copyright policy is "Not copyrighted unless indicated", rather than "Copyrighted unless otherwise indicated."
- FACT: Original image (see below) is from their website and is not marked with Copyrighted.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from page 13 HERE, thus Original Source = U.S. House of Representatives
- Most US HOR sites ([6][7][8]) state this identical message: "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and is not copyrighted]." As such, by extrapolation, it is reasonable to believe that their over-arching copyright policy is "Not copyrighted unless indicated", rather than "Copyrighted unless otherwise indicated."
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not marked with Copyrighted.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS DOJ Poster, thus Original Source = U.S. DOJ
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
- The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
- FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally a mugshot of arrested individuals.
- It states HERE: "I obtained the file through an FOIA request from the DEA." (Description HERE also states "DEA booking photo of Flores brothers."). Source HERE was "Source = DEA employee".
- FACT: Uploader verified with the DEA that the image was produced by a DEA employee.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from HERE, according to THIS page; thus Original Source = DOJ.
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
- The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
- FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS FBI website.
- THIS publication by the FBI exemplifies the copyright status of photos in their website: like every other US Govt website, their practice is "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and thus PD]."
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not noted as not "a work of the Federal government."
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from this DOJ page HERE according to this page HERE.
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS DOJ page, according to THIS page.
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
- The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
- FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originally from THIS DOJ page, according to THIS page.
- There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
- FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
- Originaly from THIS FBI page, according to THIS page.
- THIS publication by the FBI exemplifies the copyright status of photos in their website: like every other US Govt website, their practice is "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and thus PD]."
- FACT: Photo is from their website and not tagged as Copyrighted.
- RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
.jpg){kind=link}
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- I see that I missed to include a couple of posters in the nomination. Now fixed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, the dead links may be accessed at archive.org, just in case you're wondering if the sources were real. ComputerJA (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Whether these images were donated to the police or accquired through surveilance, these images were in fact collected and placed in the public domain by the the U.S. Department of Justice for wide public access. Even if you invoke a Wiki-technicality against it, the principles and spirit of Wikimedia's rules matter more than their literal wording (Wikipedia:Five pillars). The images were published by U.S. Government specifically for their public distribution and public access, and common sense in Commons is quite required. Thank you.
- Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are mixing up freedom of information with public domain. Freedom of information only means that people are permitted to access the images, not that people are allowed to use the images. For what it is worth, the US government might depend on fair use. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not matter who is confusing what with what: what matters is what is the copyright status of the photo in question at upload time. It would be silly to think that the uploader of the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo went thru the trouble of contacting US Government personnel simply to be "permitted to access the images" when access to the image was already possible to the uploader via the Internet and was what led him to the government source to begin with. So, for the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo the uploader may or may not have chosen the correct wording. What is certain is that he was satisfied the US Govt was releasing the photo as PD. This is clear from the his statement that "I obtained the file through an FOIA request from the DEA". Assuming good faith, the uploader --not Wikipedia-- would be in violation of copyright if this is false. Also, what user BatteryIncluded above is saying could be referenced by pointing to COM:DM, because a good-faith effort has taken place to ascertain that none of the images are --individually-- under copyright, and as evidence of this are the PD copyright links for each individual photo as researched above. However, if any of them were copyrighted --which they are not-- the technicality presented by the nominator is so trivial as to be a moot point under COM:DM. (BTW, Stefan, you seem to have failed to notify that uploader (Jlcoving) of your delete nomination.) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- COM:DM means that the inclusion of a copyrighted work in an image is incidental and that removal of the copyrighted work wouldn't affect the way in which the image can be used. In which way do you think that this applies here? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incorrect. COM:DM means what it says, and what it says is that "'The law does not concern itself with trifles'...De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required." There is no "way" in which I think that DM applies here. You are choosing a very narrow instance of DM that has nothing to do with this subject, but overlooking the larger scenario for which it exists: that the copyright law does not concern itself with trifles. As the saying goes, your interpretation is so fixiated on a tree that you have failed to see the forest: The websites in question have all stated that their content is PD. There is no reason to exclude anything; the websites have already made the copyright status of its content clear, but you have elected to believe, based on your own minute interpretations, that certain images are copyrighted. But your claim is not valid, because the law does not concern itself with minutenesses, trifles, trivialities, introduced by technicalities, when determining copyright status. Of course, yours would be a moot point anyway because the images are not copyrighted to begin with. The other editor's point is that, if they were copyrighted, you are hanging your hat on a technicality. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- COM:DM means that the inclusion of a copyrighted work in an image is incidental and that removal of the copyrighted work wouldn't affect the way in which the image can be used. In which way do you think that this applies here? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not matter who is confusing what with what: what matters is what is the copyright status of the photo in question at upload time. It would be silly to think that the uploader of the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo went thru the trouble of contacting US Government personnel simply to be "permitted to access the images" when access to the image was already possible to the uploader via the Internet and was what led him to the government source to begin with. So, for the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo the uploader may or may not have chosen the correct wording. What is certain is that he was satisfied the US Govt was releasing the photo as PD. This is clear from the his statement that "I obtained the file through an FOIA request from the DEA". Assuming good faith, the uploader --not Wikipedia-- would be in violation of copyright if this is false. Also, what user BatteryIncluded above is saying could be referenced by pointing to COM:DM, because a good-faith effort has taken place to ascertain that none of the images are --individually-- under copyright, and as evidence of this are the PD copyright links for each individual photo as researched above. However, if any of them were copyrighted --which they are not-- the technicality presented by the nominator is so trivial as to be a moot point under COM:DM. (BTW, Stefan, you seem to have failed to notify that uploader (Jlcoving) of your delete nomination.) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Keep per BatteryIncluded and I would say that the U.S. government can seize or otherwise acquire the copyright for publishing the stuff as PD. --Ras67 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico
[edit]Although the US government made the posters, it is not clear where the individual photos come from. Several of the people are obviously wanted by the US government, so it is likely that the underlying photos weren't taken by a US government employee but instead taken from some unidentified source. Compare with photos of US statues: such photos taken by the government are deleted unless the sculptor gave the government permission to release the photo of the sculpture to the public domain. Only the contributions by the US government are in the public domain, whereas the copyright to any incorporated works by other people retain their copyright status.
Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Keep both of the above. Past precedents such as "US statues" do not prove or disprove the copyright status of an unrelated work and are irrelevant here. The fact is that the site where these charts came from (US DEA) states HERE that there are only four works in their entire site that are copyrighted, and none of them are these charts. No federal government site is obligated to stating that each and every single one of the photos in their charts are PD, which appears to be the basis of the nominator in nominating these for deletion; a blanket statement, such as the one they provide, is sufficient for any reasonable person. It would be common sense that if the chart is PD by the government, then its individual components were PD as well. It would make no sense to assume the government doesn't know what it is doing. Let's use some common sense and stop second guessing websites that have, by defalut, already stated the photos and the poster are PD. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- Exactly in what way are relevant previous precedents irrelevant? Unless you can prove that all of the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of his official duty as a US government employee, then the posters need to be deleted per COM:EVIDENCE. Your comment contains no evidence that all of the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of his official duty as a US government employee. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- COM:EVIDENCE does not state anything of the sort, and I challenge you to use actual quotes rather than --no offense intended-- hide behind generic allegations. The proof that these charts are PD has already been made crystal clear as the site containing the charts clearly states HERE that there are only four works in their entire site that are copyrighted, but none of them are these charts. No offense, but that you choose to believe in some radical, unreasonable, and non-realistic interpretation of COM:EVIDENCE is something else, but the proof has already been given ad nauseum. Your position is that the copyright statement they have given is worthless. My position is the statement given at the site provides the reasonable evidence required to ascertain the chart as well as all of its contents are PD. Otherwise, what would be the value of their copyright statement, and what would be the intent of DOJ/DEA personnel in going thru the trouble of deciding, planning, composing, and publishing such statement? But even if they were copyrighted --which they are not as already shown-- their use in Commons would still be protected under COM:DM anyway. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- This page tells that four images on the website are protected by copyright. The page doesn't provide any information about the copyright status of any other images on the website, so the page can't be used to draw any conclusion about the copyright status of any images. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- COM:EVIDENCE does not state anything of the sort, and I challenge you to use actual quotes rather than --no offense intended-- hide behind generic allegations. The proof that these charts are PD has already been made crystal clear as the site containing the charts clearly states HERE that there are only four works in their entire site that are copyrighted, but none of them are these charts. No offense, but that you choose to believe in some radical, unreasonable, and non-realistic interpretation of COM:EVIDENCE is something else, but the proof has already been given ad nauseum. Your position is that the copyright statement they have given is worthless. My position is the statement given at the site provides the reasonable evidence required to ascertain the chart as well as all of its contents are PD. Otherwise, what would be the value of their copyright statement, and what would be the intent of DOJ/DEA personnel in going thru the trouble of deciding, planning, composing, and publishing such statement? But even if they were copyrighted --which they are not as already shown-- their use in Commons would still be protected under COM:DM anyway. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- I am not sure what state or what State you are coming from, but maybe an analogy might help: in the United States, the government doesn't go around tagging law-abiding citizens as "non-criminals" and then assumes those not tagged -are- criminals. No, the government leaves the law-abiding citizens alone, and then creates databases of criminals, not databases of non-criminals. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that such is the only efficient way to operate a government website. This is called "Rule by Exception". Likewise, the federal government has dealt with the issue of copyright notification in its websites by issuing a blanket statement that ALL of its information is in the public domain, it then indicates exceptions to such blanket statement, with statements like the page I sent you to. Your mentality is contrary to Rule by Exception; it is more like, "Although the sites state that their content is PD, some elements couldn't possibly be PD and, since every Rule has an Exception, the exception here must be that the charts cannot be PD because elements of them could not possibly be PD", and that would be second-guessing the Authority that has provided the information. Again, if certain elements were under copy protection --which they are not, and the proof is that the Government itself is saying so -- then the problem would lie with the Government misinformation, and not with the editors that in good faith used Government information to copy the image elsewhere.
- Your logic above ("This page tells that four images on the website are protected by copyright. The page doesn't provide any information about the copyright status of any other images on the website, so the page can't be used to draw any conclusion about the copyright status of any images.") is faulty and it leaves me in disbelief. Following your logic you could then say that if a Parking sign said "No Parking Sundays", then that means that we couldn't park there on Mondays thru Saturdays either, because (so goes your reasoning) "the sign tells that parking is prohibited on Sundays. The sign doesn't provide any information about the parking prohibitions of any other days of the week, so the sign can't be used to draw any conclusion about the parking prohibition of any other days of the week." Outrageous!
- My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)