Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/02/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I don't think publishing private email addresses and email correspondence can be licensed as a free image. This needs to be taken up with OTRS, not the viewing public. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. This needs to be handled according to the process described as Commons:OTRS with a proper permission (which this is not) forwarded with headers (rather than as a screenshot). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)- I am the creator and I want to delete it Justin14 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Already deleted once per above. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photos of a blocked Wikipedia user. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File is not educationally useful, and only exists for the subject's continued failed attempts at self-promotion on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Denniss, the file is correct. This is the author. Please do not delate. Thank you.
This file was initially tagged by Tibetréa as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: missing font licence Didym (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS verified -Vera (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We, Tibetréa, do not have the licence to use the fonts which were used in this picture. Although we gave Wikipedia the permission to use this file, we unfortunately have to withdraw the licence given, to not be prosecuted by the font owner. So we request a deletion of this picture. Tibetréa (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: the license can't be revoced and the font is likely not copyrighted in the US. But in the country of origen it might be copyrighted and therefor com:PCP applies. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tibetréa as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: missing font licence Didym (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS verifiedVera (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We, Tibetréa, do not have the licence to use the fonts which were used in this picture. Although we gave Wikipedia the permission to use this file, we unfortunately have to withdraw the licence given, to not be prosecuted by the font owner. So we request a deletion of this picture. Tibetréa (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: the license can't be revoced and the font is likely not copyrighted in the US. But in the country of origen it might be copyrighted and therefor com:PCP applies. Natuur12 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty but useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sì, sono d'accordo per la cancellazione df -delete- - (Jerry) , Gerardo
- Delete: Mobile test upload --moogsi (blah) 23:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely out of scope and possible copyvio too. Jespinos (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
LBNL Image Library not PD-US-Gov, see [1]. And the image from BERKELEY-LAB shizhao (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded the same image, but including the reverse as part of the image, making it more complete. Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality shot with tilt, now has two improved versions to replace it: File(1)Strathmore Wentworth Falls-2 & 3. Sardaka (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful self license of the flying air force one. Looks like a scan. GeorgHH • talk 06:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Private image. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 07:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
errato caricamento Antonio Mattina 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
errato caricamento Antonio Mattina 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Vince is not the author of the image. You have no right to declare the public domain. It is only the author can do. He, however, is not known. However, the image licensing. Since there is no authorization, infringing files could be deleted. (The justification texts in machine translation. Sorry about that.) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC) PierreSelim (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: I have a strong suspicion that this is part of a series of photos taken by Ottó Vahl (Vahl Ottó) in 1972 (although it could just be that he always wore that jumper :) but finding the actual picture itself is tricky cos it's been on wiki for long enough to spread everywhere --moogsi (blah) 23:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In discovering the above, I found lots of pictures of this guy going back to 1922, but none of them are usable :( ... considering this particular file is in use on quite a few pages --moogsi (blah) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Technical characteristics indeed suggest uploader is not the author Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Superseded with <math>. Uploader notified at ru.wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. derivated via (example) http://www.nmf.ch/webcam/webcam_schweiz_basel.html (showing a life picture of sun, © 2013 New Media Factory – Basel, Schweiz, data apparently coming from http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/viewer/flash/flash.html) = http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/imageviewer/images/images2/latest_eit_284_full.jpg (similar, from 26.02.2013). Question: configurable via NASA-work ({{PD-USGov-NASA}}) ? Gunnex (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Vva}}: File:P-V-T Diagram (Water).de.svg. Also {{BadJPEG}} and inconsistent legend. Not in use. McZusatz (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Henri Marret is dead in 1964. No freedom of panorama in France. Copyright violation. 90.44.105.107 11:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Not own work. The file shows the logo of the "Presidencia de la Nación". No source given. ALE! ¿…? 12:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope; no conceivable educational use which couldn't already be satisfied by existing images or markup. Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, promo shot. Yann (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Gilbert lives 1905-1991 so the image is unlikely {{PD-old-100}}. GeorgHH • talk 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
doubtfull this picture is free to use on Wikipedia/Commons with this license. PIcture seems to be a cut out from the original festival poster edition 2012. Sonty (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The file is not coming up, maybe wrong filename? Miyachieurope (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Broken file. Yann (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Copyvio|Apparent derivative of non-free|source=https://www.google.com/search?q=tex+oro+del+sur&safe=off&sa=X&tbm=isch&ei=IBouUaWtJsb14QTor4DgCg&ved=0CFIQ-BU}} Uusijani (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Picture of non notable people. Better images of this site exist: see File:Ta Phrom 1.jpg. BrightRaven (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As the watermark suggests, the photo likely is not own work. Jespinos (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company or user project. Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
FOP in Argentina only applies to buildings, not public art Vera (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: YouTube statistics. Useless for Wikipedia article too. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in use. --93.132.83.238 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused low quality screenshot of stats on random video, no longer in use (ping also User:EugeneZelenko from previous nom) ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution, no valid metadata. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing or no valid EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two copyrights to consider. The copyright in the medal has probably expired, but we have no information about the image or any license to it. If the image was actually taken by our uploader, as claimed, then we need a license. If not, then we need to know the source and confirm that it is freely licensed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That's me, F.punkt. My answer:
I own a copy of this medal. And I myself did the photo. For the photo I confirm free license.
28 th February 2013
Kept: Withdrawn by nom -- the medal is PD and the image now has a license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
OTRS ticket#2013022710001205 reports that this is used without permission. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy delete: copy of http://www.cmj.com/news/bikini-kill-forms-record-label-to-reissue-albums/ > http://www.cmj.com:8080/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bikini-Kill.jpeg MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
no permission for CC-BY-SA 93.132.83.238 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted content High Contrast (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted as part ofcleanup russavia (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete as likely copyvio, like the rest of the user's uploads. --Rrburke (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not own work, as claimed. Low resolution, no EXIF data, part of a copyright watermark by the bottom-right corner. —Andrei S. Talk 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Given the above issues it's extremely likely that this is a copyright violation. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A COM:DW of a copyrighted work High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Jarekt (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. This kind of images uplodaded by Jordy Vaca should be deleted too. Dura-Ace (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:TAME despegando UIO.jpg
- File:KLM UIO 777.jpg
- File:TA E190.jpg
- File:LA 787.jpg
- File:2K MIA.jpg
- File:LP.jpg
- File:CMP Air.jpg
- File:TAME douglas 1962.jpg
- File:TAME 2005.jpg
- File:TAME 1990.jpg
- File:TAME 1980.jpg
- File:EQ MINI.jpg
- File:EQ 2003.jpg
- File:AA NEW 777-300.jpg
- File:AA int'l.jpg
- File:TAME A330.jpg
- File:LAN Airlines (Oneworld).png
- File:PARQUE BIC.jpg
- Delete: All the images are copyrighted, some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Some of the images even have the Airliners.com tag. Elviper (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and personal investigation Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I need to change it to suit my article Wpolido (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: You can upload an new version to override this one PierreSelim (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please remove this drawing the drawing is too pre cair Toilet (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Replaced with SVG, uploader requests deletion. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Daryona as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Guldbagge Award logo is copyrighted, uploader is not an author INeverCry 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution, replaced by File:Mesotrione chemical structure.png. See Special:ListFiles/Chemager for more files with similar problems. Leyo 19:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality and no indication of why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Looks like a screenshot from a television programm. Gunnex (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ya no lo necesito. William Jurado Peña (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No painter is noted and the location of the art is not given. I would say that this image is unsourced since this flickr account has only 4-5 images on its account. The metadata doesn't name the copyright owner, except 'God'. Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
According to "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account, this image is marked with "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. Please visit http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ for more information." Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication website states "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.", which thereby would seem to infer that "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" is the "creator" or "artist" or "owner" as only he or she, as the "creator" or "artist" or "owner", would be permitted to dedicate the image in question to the public domain in the first place. Concerning the metadata content, perhaps the artist was inspired by God and thus felt compelled to give God credit? The metadata lists "Copyright holder" as "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work." which appears to me as a valid "Copyright holder", basically stating that the image is in the public domain. According to the "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr image license, this image is Licensed as "Attribution, Share Alike", however the metadata clearly says "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED..." as does the Flickr image description. Regarding "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account only having 4-5 images, it seems as though this may be a fairly new account as it appears additional images/photosets were uploaded 27 February 2013. The photo set entitled "Archangel Gabriel" does have only 4 photos, however another photo set entitled "digital artwork" appears to have over 50 additional photos…
--ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Who created the original painting and where is it located? It might be Pd-Art but surely this information might be relevant. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I see your point concerning the relevancy of additional information about the original painting, however I'm not personally privy to this information... The flickr account previously cited did not make mention of these details. However, according to what I've been able to find online, this image may have originated from a c13th Byzantine Icon from Monastery of Saint Catherine in Sinai, Egypt. I will continue to try to find additional supporting information about the original painting, however I still believe this photo meets public domain requirements and therefore shouldn't be deleted, as doing so would risk this photo being lost to time. Far too much has been lost throughout history already and so I must strongly object to any deletion... --ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I Withdraw this nomination and agree this image can be kept with a PD-Art tag. Admin EugeneZelenko agrees too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Centpacrr as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image appears to be a copyrighted image under the terms and conditions of the Keystone Press Agency, Ltd and no proof has been provided that this image had never been published anywhere without a claim of copyright. INeverCry 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also see
the file's talk pagehere. The fact that it is a press photo is reasonable "proof" that it has been published. Just the mere production of of a press photo is arguably "publishing". Again, the copyright rule requires the item to be published with a copyright notice. This image was not (along with many other images that are similarly in the public domain). The copyright law in this occasion is clear and unambiguous. And again, it doesn't matter what the Keystone web site says.... it's irrelevant in this case. – JBarta (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Below are a few examples of similarly licensed images...
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![82 File:Soviet Means "Best" (7282503854).jpg](#File:Soviet_Means_"Best"_(7282503854).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}
.de.svg){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}
![17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/27#c-High_Contrast-2013-02-27T17:20:00.000Z-File:Soviet_Means_"Best"_(7282503854).jpg){kind=link}
![22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/27#c-Russavia-2013-02-27T22:13:00.000Z-File:Soviet_Means_"Best"_(7282503854).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
– JBarta (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'll expand further on the claim that in regards to this image, the Keystone web site is irrelevant. In copyright cases it's copyright law that takes precedence over the wishes of a publisher. In other words, if a publisher were to decree that one stand on his head and sing the Oscar Mayer Bologna song in order to use the image, it would be irrelevant as far as copyright law (and Commons licensing) is concerned. The copyright law is clear in this case, the photo by lack of a copyright notice is public domain and the license is correct. I would add that the only legitimate dispute regarding this image is it's publication location. The license states "published in the United States" but the image was taken in the UK of a German pop star. One might argue that places publication in Europe rather than the U.S. To that I'd point out one of the Keystone stamps on the back of the photo lists a New York office... so I'd argue even that line of attack is rather weak. – JBarta (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- For comparison, here are few similar images currently on ebay which were published between 1923 & 1977 that DO carry a copyright notice. These would be ineligible for PD-US-no notice on Commons. Actually they would be disallowed on Commons altogether (until their copyrights expire) and could only hope to be used on local wikis as fair use. [2], [3], [4], [5]. – JBarta (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- A claim has been made here that this image was "published between 1923 & 1977 without a copyright notice". If that is the case please state when and in what publication that happened. The image's acknowledged owner, Keystone Press Agency, states in its on-line notice of the "Terms and Conditions" under which the approximately 1.3 million "news, sports, entertainment, and archival images" it owns (a great many of which could be called "publicity" photographs) may be used and clearly indicates thereby that they are "non-free" copyrighted images subject to restriction. With respect I do not see how this is "irrelevant" in the light of WP's quite restrictive stated policy on the "fair use" of non-free images in the English Wikipedia -- and the absolute prohibition of their use in Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your questions and misunderstandings have all been addressed numerous times previously. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for you. – JBarta (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- A claim has been made here that this image was "published between 1923 & 1977 without a copyright notice". If that is the case please state when and in what publication that happened. The image's acknowledged owner, Keystone Press Agency, states in its on-line notice of the "Terms and Conditions" under which the approximately 1.3 million "news, sports, entertainment, and archival images" it owns (a great many of which could be called "publicity" photographs) may be used and clearly indicates thereby that they are "non-free" copyrighted images subject to restriction. With respect I do not see how this is "irrelevant" in the light of WP's quite restrictive stated policy on the "fair use" of non-free images in the English Wikipedia -- and the absolute prohibition of their use in Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Image will most likely be deleted. It was made in London and most likely by a british citizen so US regulation is not relevant here as EU law applies to it. --Denniss (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, by a British citizen is neither here nor there. Made in London is largely irrelevant as well. (It was published by a company with offices in London, Canada, New York and possibly elsewhere.) The photo could have been taken by a Martian on Venus for all the copyright law cares. What's important is where it's published. And as I said earlier, the publishing house has an office in New York and the photo is stamped as such. I think that counts enough as "published in the United States" to qualify. – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- That may have made it legal in the US but not in the country of origin. --Denniss (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- So if a photo is taken in Britain by a multinational company, British copyright law takes precedence (on Commons) no matter where it's subsequently published? You're suggesting that it doesn't matter where a photo is published... but where it's taken? That such a photo, if PD in the US cannot be used on Commons if it's not PD in the country where the photo was taken? (I apologize for being pedantic. I just want to be clear... both in what you're saying and my understanding) – JBarta (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- That may have made it legal in the US but not in the country of origin. --Denniss (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, by a British citizen is neither here nor there. Made in London is largely irrelevant as well. (It was published by a company with offices in London, Canada, New York and possibly elsewhere.) The photo could have been taken by a Martian on Venus for all the copyright law cares. What's important is where it's published. And as I said earlier, the publishing house has an office in New York and the photo is stamped as such. I think that counts enough as "published in the United States" to qualify. – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Image will most likely be deleted. It was made in London and most likely by a british citizen so US regulation is not relevant here as EU law applies to it. --Denniss (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If there's evidence the photographer is US citizen then the US regulation may be effective but as the image was made in the UK the chances are high it was made by a UK/foreign citizen and the US regulation does not apply. We can't just assume it was an US citizien just to keep the license you chose. Second problem: Keystone may have released images up to and including 1977 with a copyright notice. Third problem: Keystone may have renewed the copyright for this image. That's what makes these special US regulation so problematic if used in multinational environments, especially if an images was not created on US soil. --Denniss (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I take issue with your statements...
- "Keystone may have released images up to and including 1977 with a copyright notice" How does that matter? What matters is this image, and it doesn't have a copyright notice. Are you suggesting that if they released other images with a copyright notice, that by some sort of copyright magic this photo becomes copyrighted as well?
- "Keystone may have renewed the copyright for this image." Fair enough, though for an image like this it's so arguably unlikely as to suggest they probably did not.
- And now you're suggesting the most important concern is the citizenship of the photographer? Country it was published in takes a back seat to not only the country the photo was taken but the nationality of the photographer? Pretty thin man, pretty thin.
- I understand we're getting into problematic areas and I appreciate your patience. Still, it's not unreasonable to want to resolve this in a logical manner that reflects the copyright laws. – JBarta (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the real question here is where was it first published... the U.S. or outside the U.S.? The copyright laws seem to draw that basic distinction. One argument is that the photo was taken in Britain (by who it doesn't matter IMO) so it can be considered "first published" there. Another argument is that being a multinational company with an office in New York and the photo stamped such, it was "first published" in the U.S. as well as first published anywhere else. In other words, "first published" in all countries it has an office. I acknowledge that logic is a little shaky and how we would handle that I'm not sure... but there it is. – JBarta (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- DELETE: This photograph is also backstamped "Keystone Press Agency, Ltd.. 4/7 Red Lion Court, London" and the caption label applied to this print (which partially covers Keystone's London office backstamp previously applied) says that it was taken at LHR "this afternoon" thus indicating that this specific photographic print was physically made, backstamped, labeled, and distributed in the UK on the date indicated in the caption, February 19, 1969. That being the case, the most logical assumption is that if it were ever published, its first publication was probably in the UK on or about the day it was taken. There is no also no evidence whatsoever that it was ever published in the United States beyond the pure speculation of its uploader. Centpacrr (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll repeat a comment I made earlier that in this case it is arguable, even reasonable to say that the act of producing and distributing the physical press photo is "publishing" it. This is how we treat all such press/publicity photos here on Commons. We don't know for sure where and when this image was first physically distributed (published), but yes, it is reasonable to suggest it was very near 2/19/69 and likely in the UK and/or Germany. That said, there's still the shaky logic I offered above suggesting we consider it simultaneously published in all countries the publishing house had an office... or at least in the US and UK as suggested by the stamps. Certainly in 1969 they had the technology to wire images around the globe instantaneously. – JBarta (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- DELETE: This photograph is also backstamped "Keystone Press Agency, Ltd.. 4/7 Red Lion Court, London" and the caption label applied to this print (which partially covers Keystone's London office backstamp previously applied) says that it was taken at LHR "this afternoon" thus indicating that this specific photographic print was physically made, backstamped, labeled, and distributed in the UK on the date indicated in the caption, February 19, 1969. That being the case, the most logical assumption is that if it were ever published, its first publication was probably in the UK on or about the day it was taken. There is no also no evidence whatsoever that it was ever published in the United States beyond the pure speculation of its uploader. Centpacrr (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The contention that the creation of a single photographic print of an image by its copyright holder constitutes its being ''...simultaneously published in all countries the publishing house had an office..." and, by the application to the print by the creator/owner of its corporate name and address without including a specific copyright notice, that the copyright holder had also simultaneously knowingly, intentionally, and irrevocably waived and released "all claims of copyright protection in all countries" seems to me to be a stretch of breathtaking proportions. This contention also seems to be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of both WP Commons policy on the "Fair Use" of "non-free" images, and of the terms and conditions of the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886" (as amended) as a whole, and in particular of Article III Sec. 3 which states: "The expression 'published works' means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public having regard to the nature of the work.", as well as of Article V, Sections 1, 2 & 3 which state: "(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention. (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. (3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. However, when the author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which he is protected under this Convention, he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors."
- The Keystone Press Agency is in the business of creating photographic images which it then distributes directly to its subscribers (and not by "publication") for a fee for which the Agency then confers a limited license to publish that image "ONE TIME ONLY", and does so under terms and conditions that provide that "the image may not be saved after publication in any form, whether in hard copy or on digital storage medium, that would permit the unauthorized republication, transfer, or any other use, private or commercial, of the image." Thus the manner in which the Keystone Press Agency distributes its images is not "publication" and in no way constitutes a waiver of its copyright irrespective of whether or not it stamps a © notice on the photographic prints it creates. Centpacrr (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- An entity may not mean for their work to pass into the public domain, but depending on the work and the law, pass it does regardless. Anyhow, this aspect has been hashed several times above and is not pertinent to this deletion request. As I first mentioned earlier, the question of where and when it was first published is the only legitimate question that suggests deletion. My mistake was in thinking "first published in the U.S." meant the first time it was published in the U.S. rather than being published in the U.S. before being published anywhere else. I also assumed that if it's PD in the U.S. it's OK on Commons. At this point it seems it must be PD in both the US and the country of origin... I think. I'm still a little confused because Commons rules don't seem to parallel US copyright law... or do they? Deniss mentions a few things that don't seem to be reflected in the copyright law so that adds to my confusion as well. The minute I think I have this stuff understood, more ifs and buts get tossed in. – JBarta (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The known copyright holder of the image is clearly the Keystone Press Agency as indicated by the backstamps contemporaneously applied to the photographic print. Keystone, however, does not "publish" images but instead licenses them for publication by its clients for a fee. Entities that license an image from Keystone for publication do so on a "ONE TIME ONLY" basis under Keystone's contractual terms and conditions that state that such licensees may not "permit the unauthorized republication, transfer, or any other use, private or commercial, of the image." The failure (if any) by any such limited licensee to meet the terms of its contract with the copyright holder by publishing the image without a cutline or other copyright notice, however, does not mean that Keystone would have thus involuntarily waived and/or lost its copyright of the image because of the negligence of the licensee. There is also no evidence (or even an affirmative reason to believe) that this particular image of a German pop singer arriving at LHR in London, England, in 1969 to promote a record of her's being released in the UK two days later was ever published in the United States in any form, but whether or not it was is really irrelevant as to Keystone's retaining ownership of its copyright.
- With respect, to posit that any time the copyright terms of an image may have been violated in any way by a third party that such misuse also permanently releases the image to the Public Domain just defies logic and all tenants of copyright protection. That being the case, the use on Wikipedia of this or any other similarly copyright protected image on that basis suggested by the uploader would be a "copyvio" prohibited by WP Policy, copyright law in the US, UK, and elsewhere, and the Berne Convention. Centpacrr (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading more carefully Commons Licensing rules it seems that the photo must be free in both the U.S. AND the source country. By a slight stretch the source country can also be the U.S. and cause the photo to be free in the U.S. but the source country is also (arguably primarily) the UK and it's not free there until at least 70 (95?) years after the death of the author. (The author being Keystone Publishing I'm not sure how that would work.) Since it's not free in the UK it cannot be on Commons, I withdraw my arguments that it should remain. My apologies for not understanding Commons Licensing policy sufficiently. – JBarta (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- For the reasons I have stated above, I do not see that this image meets the criteria as being "free" under U.S Copyright law either as there is no evidence or reason to believe that the copyright holder, the Keystone Press Agency, has ever released or licensed it as PD in the United States (or anywhere else) either. Centpacrr (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I've started an RFC on en:WP to discuss a couple of the differences of opinion expressed in the discussion above. Comments are welcome. – JBarta (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The difference between the image under discussion here as compared to those in the gallery of "examples" above is that the those four are "publicity" photos distributed for free by the organization seeking that they be published to promote the individuals or shows depicted in them. The Brühl image, on the other had, was produced by and belongs to the Keystone Press Agency which is in the business of producing images which it then licenses to its clients and/or subscribers for a fee which provides a limited license for "one time only" publication under contractual terms and conditions that state that the licensees may not "permit the unauthorized republication, transfer, or any other use, private or commercial, of the image." Keystone does not distribute its images for free, does not distribute them to promote itself, and does not release them to the Public Domain. Centpacrr (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'd follow JBarta's argument here. One thing certain is that the photographer's nationality is irrelevant in copyright law. What's important is the place of publication. Yann (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- See my post a few paragraphs above where I withdraw my argument for keeping and why. – JBarta (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK fine, I changed my vote to comments. Yann (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- See my post a few paragraphs above where I withdraw my argument for keeping and why. – JBarta (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unlike widely distributed free publicity photos, as a news agency Keystone would make only enough prints for its paid media subscribers (usually 25 to 50), retain the copyright, did not distribute its images for free or to promote itself, and did not release them to the Public Domain. An example of a Keystone photograph with its full copyright and image reproduction limitation and terms notice backstamped on it by the company's Paris bureau can be viewed here. Centpacrr (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hold off on deletion. While I'm leaning toward deletion from Commons, the image definitely appears to be PD-US-no notice. Since all works that are PD-US for any reason are appropriate at en:wp, and since this image is useful there, it shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio. Either we should keep it here, or we transfer it to en:wp and tagging it with {{Do not move to Commons}} over there. If the latter be the correct action, of course we should delete it here immediately after finishing the transfer process. Meanwhile, the presence of a proper copyright notice doesn't necessarily mean that a work published first in the USA is copyrighted — if you investigated enough images, you'd surely find some for which {{PD-US-not renewed}} is applicable. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- No this image is not PD in the US, nor for that matter is it likely free anywhere else. There is no evidence that this image of a German national pop singer taken in the UK was ever published in the US, and even if it were it was and is a copyrighted image owned by the Keystone Press Agency, a commercial creator and supplier of photographs which distributes them exclusively to the subscribers (clients under contract) to its services for a fee. Keystone then confers a limited license for that fee to its subscribers to publish copyrighted images "ONE TIME ONLY" under terms and conditions that provide that "the image may not be saved after publication in any form, whether in hard copy or on digital storage medium, that would permit the unauthorized republication, transfer, or any other use, private or commercial, of the image." Thus the manner in which the Keystone distributes its images is not "publication" and in no way constitutes a waiver by the Agency of its copyright irrespective of whether or not it stamps a complete © notice on every photographic print it creates. (See here) Even if this image were published in the US by a third party between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, that would not constitute a waiver and release of it to the public domain by the image's true copyright holder. (See 17 U.S.C. § 201(e)) Thus this image is not PD-US. Centpacrr (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that people are uncertain what "source country" means. The source country is the country in which the photo was first published (regardless of where it was taken). If it was published in multiple countries within 30 days, then the source country is the country out of those which offers the shortest copyright term. Also, {{PD-US-no notice}} can only be used if this was first published in the United States (or published there within 30 days after publication outside the United States) or if the photographer was a US citizen residing in the United States or if it was already in the public domain in the source country on 1 January 1996.
- It also seems that people are having different opinions on how publication is defined in the United States. This seems too complex for me, so I will happily leave this discussion for other people. However, note that different countries might define publication in different ways, which might mean that different countries might have different opinions on which country is the source country. Not sure what Commons would do in such a situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the definition of "publication", at least the US Copyright office definition, I posted on the subject here. – JBarta (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is only the definition since 1978. Before that, the term was not defined in the law, and the courts had to come up with their own guidelines. It is an extremely complicated topic, and judges could reasonably differ on what exactly constituted general publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the definition of "publication", at least the US Copyright office definition, I posted on the subject here. – JBarta (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete from Commons, on the grounds that that we don't have enough evidence (including the undated NY office stamp on the back of this copy) to firmly conclude that the photo was first published in the US (or published there within 30 days of first publication elsewhere), and so the source country may well be the UK. UK copyright would not expire until at least 2040 (perhaps later if the photographer is not anonymous). Of course this doesn't prevent the photo from being uploaded to English Wikipedia, which only cares about US copyright, and it could survive there if there are good arguments for it being PD-US. Wikipedia would be the place to decide that question. --Avenue (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete for me on this, given current information. It's possible that it could be PD, but I think there are way too many questions about it. First, we need to show that a specific copy or copies were published without notice. This particular copy has no notice, but there does not seem to be any evidence that this one was actually distributed. It may have been a copy that the Keystone company kept in house and did not actually give out (while the ones they did give out may have had notices). There are decent odds it was distributed, but I think we need better proof of that before we declare a work PD and encourage people to copy it. Being a post-1964 image, lack of renewal is not a possibility -- the only way it is PD is through lack of notice as a US work. Secondly, the UK angle is also quite troublesome, and could completely trump any lack of notice argument. This was taken in London (not necessarily relevant), but it also has the London office stamp on the back -- so it very well may have been distributed there first. If it was not also published within the U.S. within 30 days, then it is UK work plain and simple, and the UK copyright is still valid. Even if it was simultaneously published (i.e. published in the US at the same time), there is still an issue -- in that case the country of origin is the country with the *shorter* terms. The U.S. would nominally be 95 years from publication (I don't think the lack of notice would enter into this calculation, as the Berne Convention defines it, and prohibits copyright formalities like notices). The UK would be 70 years from publication. So, the UK might be the country of origin regardless. To be PD, we need to know that *this copy* (and others like it) were distributed and published *in the US*, and that no other copy was published at the same time in the UK. While certainly possible, it's far from definite and maybe not even likely, so I think I'd lean deletion on it. The "simultaneous publication" situation would fare better on en-wiki (which uses just US rules) since that would preclude it from URAA restoration. But the other issues also cloud it there, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not Keystone Press Agency stamps "©" on each and every photographic print it creates of images for which it owns the copyright is irrelevant as Keystone distributes (which some contend thereby "publishes") such prints only to its subscribers ("clients") (and not free to the public) in fee, and it does so only under contractual terms and conditions known and agreed to by both parties in writing which provide that Keystone a) retains both ownership of and copyright to the images and b) limits through a license how the client may use the images Keystone provides. Among those terms is the condition that: "The images may be incorporated in materials for editorial publication only. Permission to make a one-time reproduction does not include the right to authorize others to make any further use of any image. ANY COPYING AND/OR MAKING OF EXTRA PRINTS IS FORBIDDEN." If a third party (a Keystone client or anybody else) later "publishes" the image "without a copyright notice", however, that does not in any way void or abrogate Keystone's ongoing copyright protection and/or property rights. As such a third party "publisher" is not the image's actual copyright holder, under 17 U.S.C. § 201(e) Keystone can't lose or otherwise be involuntarily deprived of its copyright by the unauthorized actions of another party. (Title 17 limits the conditions under which that can possibly happen to Title 11 of the United States Code which covers bankruptcy.) Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- DeletePrecautionary principle, can't be sure that this is PD, possible harm outweighs possible gains. --KTo288 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as per Carl Lindberg. There is relevant discussion at en:Template talk:PD-US-no notice. Yann (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Nonsense - WP:BIO Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep it is a zombie-like face at third allslovene riots; work of art, but copyright does not apply here. there were lots of similar masks on these protests as a response to governmental critiques of protests being unjustified. if nothing else, it is clearly an anonymous work. --Miha (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why copyright wouldn't apply here. It's in the scope of Article 5:[6] "Copyright works are individual intellectual creations in the domain of literature, science, and art, which are expressed in any mode, unless otherwise provided by this Act." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS validation has been sent by Matija Solce, creator and appointed representative of Protestival. — M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS confirmed Morning ☼ (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tretja vseslovenska vstaja 20130208 112.jpg. Are you trying to censor out some events? ;) --Miha (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why copyright wouldn't apply here. It's in the scope of Article 5:[7] "Copyright works are individual intellectual creations in the domain of literature, science, and art, which are expressed in any mode, unless otherwise provided by this Act."
- Yes, I'm trying to censor the Commons. ;) (Not of events, but of non-free works.) --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- See my explanation on the other page. The picture was taken on protests and the work is anonymous. --Miha (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Anonymous works are copyrighted too. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS validation has been sent by Matija Solce, creator of depicted work and appointed representative of Protestival. — M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a great news. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great! Btw, just for future reference, this is not a FOP case. The law requires work of art to be kept permanently in public place, which is not the case here, so the normal copyright applies (i.e. even the noncommercial usage is not allowed without permission) --Miha (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're correct. Thanks for having pointed this out. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS confirmed Morning ☼ (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is so called "zombie mask" cut out of paper. Here are instructions, pattern and video tutorial on how to make one - it's not a creative process for sure. Masks like this one are used massively at Slovenian protests. I'm surprised nominator isn't aware of this. M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone had to desing it, which means that it is an individual intellectual art creation.(Article 5) The cited page clearly states: "Priročni načrt za zombi masko. © NewMoment" [A Handy Plan for the Zombi Mask. © NewMoment]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The pattern was designed. The patern itself is ©. But masks cut out according to the pattern aren't. M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 09:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The masks are reproductions of the pattern (or derived works). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, they are not reproductions. Because the pattern isn't a mask, it's a plan, i.e. a combination of vertical and horizontal lines. Mask has to be cut out and folded correctly to look like a mask. Making a few cuts with scissors and folding a paper isn't a creative work.M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 09:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It's analogous to architectural works, where the plan is copyrighted and the building is either a reproduction or a derivative.[8] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No words to describe the insanity of this deletion proposal. --Hladnikm (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- This proposal is much less insane than your comment that you are the author of this copyrighted board. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted verses (a parody). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Nominator obviously doesn't understand how parody works. Verses from France Prešeren's Glosa are in public domain:
Slep je, kdor se s petjem ukvarja,
Kranjec moj mu osle kaže;
pevcu vedno sreča laže,
on živi, umrje brez d'narja.
On the depicted banner only three words (here bolded) were changed to reflect current Slovene situation. These three words together don't even make a one complete verse! I seriously doubt this change is sufficient to copyright this banner.M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- On what do you base your opinion that I don't understand how parody works? Per en:parody: "A parody is an imitative work created to mock, comment on or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satiric or ironic imitation". Here you have an original work (Glosa), an imitation (these verses that with the replacement of words become original), and the target (the Slovene deputies and those who work). It's an example of a derived work. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: A parody is not a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, no educational purpose Ezarateesteban 21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, promotional purpose Ezarateesteban 21:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This logo is over the threshold of originality in my opinion. I don't know what the laws are in the country of origin (Spain). Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have decided to remove this photo for personal reasons. I had accidently added to this photo a long time ago. Thank you. Trathbun1 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Morning ☼ (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Self promotional; no reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. See also related images already deleted as described at User talk:Dash.tastix. 208.81.184.4 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Self promotional; no reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. See also related images already deleted as described at User talk:Dash.tastix. 208.81.184.4 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free school logo should not be on the Commons. I have taken a copy for fair use on en.wiki. Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Leoboudv as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: No painter is noted and the location of the art is not given for Pd-Old to apply. I would say that this image is unsourced since this flickr account has only 4-5 images on its account. The metadata doesn't name the copyright owner, except 'God'. How can Commons keep this image in this situation? Didym (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
According to "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account, this image is marked with "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. Please visit http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ for more information." Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication website states "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.", which thereby would seem to infer that "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" is the "creator" or "artist" or "owner" as only he or she, as the "creator" or "artist" or "owner", would be permitted to dedicate the image in question to the public domain in the first place. Concerning the metadata content, perhaps the artist was inspired by God and thus felt compelled to give God credit? The metadata lists "Copyright holder" as "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work." which appears to me as a valid "Copyright holder", basically stating that the image is in the public domain. According to the "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr image license, this image is Licensed as "Attribution, Share Alike", however the metadata clearly says "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED..." as does the Flickr image description. Regarding "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account only having 4-5 images, it seems as though this may be a fairly new account as it appears additional images/photo sets were uploaded 27 February 2013. The photo set entitled "Archangel Gabriel" does have only 4 photos, however another photo set entitled "digital artwork" appears to have over 50 additional photos…
--ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody else painted this image long before Flickr exists. To make this image useful, it's necessary to provide at least place and approximate date of creation. School and painter information will be even better if available. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The flickr account previously cited did not make mention of these details. However, according to what I've been able to find online, this image may have originated from a c13th Byzantine Icon from Monastery of Saint Catherine in Sinai, Egypt. I will continue to try to find additional supporting information about the original painting, however I still believe this photo meets public domain requirements and therefore shouldn't be deleted, as doing so would risk this photo being lost to time. Far too much has been lost throughout history already and so I must strongly object to any deletion... --ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I Withdraw this nomination and agree this image can be kept with a PD-Art tag. Admin EugeneZelenko agrees too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Leoboudv as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: No painter is noted and the location of the art is not given for Pd-Old to apply. I would say that this image is unsourced since this flickr account has only 4-5 images on its account. The metadata doesn't name the copyright owner, except 'God'. How can Commons keep this image in this situation? Didym (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
According to "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account, this image is marked with "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. Please visit http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ for more information." Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication website states "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.", which thereby would seem to infer that "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" is the "creator" or "artist" or "owner" as only he or she, as the "creator" or "artist" or "owner", would be permitted to dedicate the image in question to the public domain in the first place. Concerning the metadata content, perhaps the artist was inspired by God and thus felt compelled to give God credit? The metadata lists "Copyright holder" as "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED To the extent possible under law, artist has dedicated this work to the public domain, thereby waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work." which appears to me as a valid "Copyright holder", basically stating that the image is in the public domain. According to the "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr image license, this image is Licensed as "Attribution, Share Alike", however the metadata clearly says "(CC0) NO RIGHTS RESERVED..." as does the Flickr image description. Regarding "TheStarsInTheNightWillForeverBurnBright" flickr account only having 4-5 images, it seems as though this may be a fairly new account as it appears additional images/photosets were uploaded 27 February 2013. The photo set entitled "Archangel Gabriel" does have only 4 photos, however another photo set entitled "digital artwork" appears to have over 50 additional photos…
--ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody else painted this image long before Flickr exists. To make this image useful, it's necessary to provide at least place and approximate date of creation. School and painter information will be even better if available. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The flickr account previously cited did not make mention of these details. However, according to what I've been able to find online, this image may have originated from a painting dated 1230, entitled "Angel in White" from the 'Mileseva Monastery' in the Republic of Serbia. I will continue to try to find additional supporting information about the original painting, however I still believe this photo meets public domain requirements and therefore shouldn't be deleted, as doing so would risk this photo being lost to time. Far too much has been lost throughout history already and so I must strongly object to any deletion… --ArchAngelGabrielAdmirer88 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I Withdraw this nomination and agree this image can be kept with a PD-Art tag. Admin EugeneZelenko agrees too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Julian Herzog as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader request: Museum forbids use of photos for commercial use, cf. http://www.mercedes-benz-classic.com/content/classic/mpc/mpc_classic_website/en/mpc_home/mbc/home/museum/mercedes-benz-museum/about/press.html. Yann (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This would appear to be a non-copyright restriction ("house rules"), which does not affect the copyright status of the image. --moogsi (blah) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Moogsi. Yann (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvios and likely out of scope too.
Jespinos (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by De Romeo's (talk · contribs)
[edit]Inconsistent watermarks, likely the images are not the own work of the uploader.
- File:Het VTM Schlagerfetival 2011 - foto Doeke.jpg
- File:Het VTM Schlagerfetival - 2011 - foto Geert Brams.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KindnessEleeveen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Gfzxfgxf.jpg
- File:Sfhxsfgsf.jpg
- File:Dgdfhsfgs.jpg
- File:Asfdfhdf.jpg
- File:Gsdgshfhdf.jpg
- File:Hfhfjsgshsgh.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pageantexpert (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Ina Ivanova Miss World NZ judge.JPG
- File:Ina Ivanova a.JPG
- File:Miss New Zealand International 2010.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sean-eccles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused images of an apparently non-notable band.
Jespinos (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paul Landowski
[edit]No COM:FOP in France. Landowski died in 1961.
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411119521).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411120701).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411121347).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411732100).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411734682).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5411735460).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5412760587).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5413662675).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5413891427).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5414458820).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5414502922).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5415958622).jpg
- File:Le musée-jardin Paul Landowski (Boulogne-Billancourt) (5419216766).jpg
- File:Les fils de Caïn (Paul Landowski) (3679758156).jpg
- File:Notre-Dame de Paris (France) (263922578).jpg
_(5411119521).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5411120701).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5411121347).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5411732100).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5411734682).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5411735460).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5412760587).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5413662675).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5413891427).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5414458820).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5414502922).jpg){kind=link}
_(5415958622).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5419216766).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3679758156).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(263922578).jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted part of cleanup of uploads russavia (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:YorgenHerrera.jpg
- File:Yorgen Herrera.jpg
- File:Houseyo.jpg
- File:Sedefsc.jpg
- File:Tsdlyor.jpg
- File:Sdlgyor.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sahilrai85 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image, out of scope
- File:Sahil rai 10.jpg
- File:Sahil rai 11.JPG
- File:Sahil rai 9.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 6.jpg
- File:Sahil rai 8.jpg
- File:Sahil rai 7.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 4.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 5.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 3.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 2.JPG
- File:Sahil Rai85.jpg
- File:Sahil Rai 1.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
All uploads by Gatsbylemagnifique
[edit]All uploads are artwork by Stefan Ramniceanu or pictures of Stefan Ramniceanu. It is unclear at least what right Gatsbylemagnifique has to release Ramniceanu's work under CC-BY-SA —Andrei S. Talk 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm restarting this DR because the way you started this DR is messy. For one, you didn't even inform User:Gatsbylemagnifique of this DR. --Vera (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. File:ImgCA2YCPTJ.jpg + File:Montero colombia.jpg with mysterious watermarks. All other uploads of user were copyvios.
Gunnex (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- File:Abetxuko Bridge.jpg
- File:Construction StBoi.jpg
- File:Stboi bridge.jpg
- File:HSRLlinars Bridge.jpg
- File:Triplets Road Bridge.jpg
- File:Stboi bridge.jpg
Reasons for deletion request Need to delete these images and upload them to another account by specifying the license correctly--Pedelta2 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- All you need it to provide written permission for use under the claimed licenses from the various different copyright holders. --Martin H. (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Claudio and irene (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Yoni Samedi Jose.jpg
- File:Yoni Samedy José.jpg
- File:Fall Point.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnación Montero.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Claudio and irene (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Claudio and irene (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, irrelevant actor promo.
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero Actor 6.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero Actor 3.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero Actor 4.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero Actor 2.jpg
- File:Encarnacion Montero Actor.jpg
- File:Encarnacion Montero Actor 1.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero actor.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero photo.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero in his house.jpg
- File:Romeo-santos-4 300x400 79.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnacion Montero 1995.jpg
- File:Webcam-toy-photo11.jpg
- File:Webcam-toy-photo9.jpg
- File:Webcam-toy-photo10.jpg
- File:Yoni Samedi José.jpg
- File:Claudio Encarnación Montero actor dominicano.jpg
- File:Descarga (3).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Savhñ 08:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – per nomination. In addition, claims of "own work" are doubtful, and therefore the files are copyright violations. Senator2029 05:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ArnoCorrias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jamal Tumai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional image, out of scope
Morning ☼ (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiSampa old categories
[edit]All this categories was renamed:
- Category:VI WikiSampa November 2008
- Category:V WikiSampa August 2008
- Category:IV,5 WikiSampa April 2008
- Category:IV WikiSampa March 2008
- Category:III WikiSampa June 2007
- Category:I WikiSampa January 2005
- Category:8 WikiSampa June 2011
- Category:9 WikiSampa August 2011
- Category:WikiSampa 8 (23 June 2011)
- Category:WikiSampa 05 (15 November 2008)
- Category:14 WikiSampa August 2012
- Category:12 WikiSampa March 2012
- Category:11 WikiSampa January 2012
- Category:10 WikiSampa October 2011
- Category:WikiSampa 15
- Category:WikiSampa 13 (26 May 2012
Deleted: by INerverCry. Yann (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhonder507 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Ptivate image gallery. No educational content.
GeorgHH • talk 13:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kika Flor Fly la RUCIA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:BTRfullcastseason1.jpg
- File:TIA VERO.....jpg
- File:Kollex de mi alianza blank.jpg
- File:MI LEENDA PRIMA...DANI IBARRA.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Famous one2000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Marianne's first day on taping for "Tweets for my sweets".JPG
- File:Pictorial while Marianne was getting her award..JPG
- File:Marianne acting..JPG
- File:Marianne on her dressing room..JPG
- File:Marianne while making her series..JPG
- File:Marianne on her filming day.JPG
- File:Marianne on MTV awards day.JPG
- File:Ms. Marianne (Princess Bella) at Famas Awards.jpg
_at_Famas_Awards.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contributions.
Jespinos (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pedro1997100 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios and unused personal images.
- File:Lnnnn.jpg
- File:El beso2.jpg
- File:Demi En Paraguay 12.PNG
- File:Miley En Paraguay.jpg
- File:Demi en Paraguay 3.jpg
- File:Demi Paraguay 2.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sandeep Maheshwari Delhi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Living for the City.JPG
- File:King (Marchers).JPG
- File:E Musicians.jpg
- File:River Jordan oil on canvas 1986 46 X 54'.jpg
- File:Spirituals.jpg
- File:BAPTISM.jpg
- File:ELEKTRA.jpg
- File:Runnaway Bay.JPG
- File:Banana Republic.jpg
- File:Posse.JPG
- File:Wreath for a City.jpg
- File:Walk Like an Egyptian.jpg
- File:Red Sea.jpg
- File:Rags and Old Iron.jpg
- File:Gimme a Pigfoot.jpg
- File:A Night in Tunisia.jpg
- File:Q African Buns.jpg
- File:Crabs in a Pot.jpg
- File:Wild Kingdom.tiff
- File:The Tango.tiff
- File:Heat.tiff
- File:Moment of Truth.jpg
- File:Wild Kingdom.JPG
- File:Middle Passage I.jpg
- File:Middle Passage II.jpg
- File:RITUAL.jpg
- File:The Burning.JPG
- File:Sentinel.JPG
- File:The Saints.jpg
- File:34. The Juju Table.JPG
- File:32. Bayou.JPG
- File:LAGOON.jpg
- File:JERUSALEM.jpg
- File:4. Slave Block.JPG
- File:2. Katrina.JPG
- File:Songs of Our Fathers.JPG
- File:ELDORADO.jpg
- File:Scenes from Childhood.JPG
- File:African Tango.jpg
- File:Caribbean by Keith Morrison.jpg
- File:Laggon by Keith Morrison.jpg
- File:Shango's Cargo,.jpg
- File:Zombie Jamboree 1990.jpg
- File:Tombstones.jpg
- File:Path of the samba.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daniel300009 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of Internet memes, not own work.
- File:FalseStory (1).png
- File:Facepalm.png
- File:FairEnough.png
- File:EyeBleed.png
- File:ExcitedTroll.png
- File:EWBTE.png
- File:EWBTE2.png
- File:Engineer.png
- File:EpicFailGuy.png
- File:EpicBeardGuy.png
- File:DudeComeOn.png
- File:Dolan.png
- File:DolanAxe.png
- File:Devil.png
- File:DeskFlip.png
- File:Determined.png
- File:Demoman.png
- File:Derrrp.png
- File:Dejected.png
- File:ConflictingEmotions.png
- File:Concentrated2.png
- File:Concentrated.png
- File:ComputerAlone.png
- File:CloseEnough.png
- File:CleanFuckYea.png
- File:CleanAllTheThings.png
- File:ChallengeDeclined.png
- File:ChallengeConsidered.png
- File:ChallengeCompleted.png
- File:ChallengeAccepted.png
- File:CerealSpitting.png
- File:Calma.jpg
- File:CerealGuy.png
- File:Canadian.png
- File:Bwah.png
- File:Blond.png
- File:BlackRage.png
- File:BlackGuyBeaten.png
- File:BlackGuy.png
- File:BigGrin.png
- File:BeerGuy.png
- File:Baww.png
- File:Bad poker.png
- File:AwwYeah.png
- File:AreYouKiddingMe.png
- File:Angryas.png
- File:AllTheGuy.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daniel300009 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: We have nothing against the hosting of internet memes on this project, we just require that they are freely licenced, which these are not. russavia (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daniel300009 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of Internet memes, not own work.
- File:FalseStory (1).png
- File:Facepalm.png
- File:FairEnough.png
- File:EyeBleed.png
- File:ExcitedTroll.png
- File:EWBTE.png
- File:EWBTE2.png
- File:Engineer.png
- File:EpicFailGuy.png
- File:EpicBeardGuy.png
- File:DudeComeOn.png
- File:Dolan.png
- File:DolanAxe.png
- File:Devil.png
- File:DeskFlip.png
- File:Determined.png
- File:Demoman.png
- File:Derrrp.png
- File:Dejected.png
- File:ConflictingEmotions.png
- File:Concentrated2.png
- File:Concentrated.png
- File:ComputerAlone.png
- File:CloseEnough.png
- File:CleanFuckYea.png
- File:CleanAllTheThings.png
- File:ChallengeDeclined.png
- File:ChallengeConsidered.png
- File:ChallengeCompleted.png
- File:ChallengeAccepted.png
- File:CerealSpitting.png
- File:Calma.jpg
- File:CerealGuy.png
- File:Canadian.png
- File:Bwah.png
- File:Blond.png
- File:BlackRage.png
- File:BlackGuyBeaten.png
- File:BlackGuy.png
- File:BigGrin.png
- File:BeerGuy.png
- File:Baww.png
- File:Bad poker.png
- File:AwwYeah.png
- File:AreYouKiddingMe.png
- File:Angryas.png
- File:AllTheGuy.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daniel300009 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: We have nothing against the hosting of internet memes on this project, we just require that they are freely licenced, which these are not. russavia (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/fan photos/album covers, not own work.
- File:Agapanthe le pays du bout du monde.JPG
- File:Michaël Cavalier auxClaviers.jpg
- File:Michaël Cavalier au keytar.jpg
- File:Michaël Cavalier SHABDA.JPG
- File:Michaël Cavalier 2013.JPG
- File:Michaël Cavalier Guitars wall.jpg
- File:Michaël cavalier claviers Keyboards.jpg
- File:Green Michaël Cavalier.jpg
- File:Trip Michaël Cavalier.jpg
- File:Keytar Michaël Cavalier.jpg
- File:Michaël cavalier concert.JPG
- File:Claude Marty, Michaël Cavalier.JPG
- File:Michaël Cavalier aux claviers.JPG
- File:Michaël cavalier concert 2004.jpg
- File:Michaël Cavalier en 2010.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, lack of metadata and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations with false authorship claims.
- File:Britney Spears Elton John Party.jpg
- File:Marian Barbar Reina de la Agricultura y Ganaderia.jpg
- File:UNERG Valle de la Pascua.jpg
- File:Reinas.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pereira-city (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the inconsistent/missing metadata (three of the files were taken with three different cameras, and one has no metadata) and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations with false authorship claims.
- File:Viaducto de noche.jpg – no metadata
- File:Nevado Del Ruiz Desde Pereira.JPG – taken with a Kodak Easyshare M753 Zoom on 2007-08-31 (uploader claims 2012-01-29)
- File:Pereiranight.jpg – taken with a Nikon D40X on 2007-10-18; found online (albeit in lower resolution) more than two years before it was uploaded here
- File:Zona Rural.jpg – taken with a Kodak Easyshare C513 Zoom (with its date set to 2025)
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
no freedom of Panorama in France and sculptor death in 1951 Frédéric (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I just transferred it from fr.wiki. In that case, it should be deleted there, too. -- Bojan Talk 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Statue by Firmin Michelet, died in 1951. Not in Public domain, copyrighted. No FoP in France. Sorry. Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
j'ai été induit en erreur par un article de wikipedia le droit d'auteur est de 80 ans après la mort en Espagne (1879-1942) et cet artiste est de nationalité espagnole je demande le retrait de l'image Jlvenet (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) .
Deleted: Deleted by Anthere (not yet in public domain) Dereckson (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Mort en 1942, nationalité espagnole durée des droits d'auteur en Espagne : 80 ans. Oeuvre dont la publication initiale est dans un pays inconnu, peut-être l'espagne ? Trop d'incertitudes, en résumé je ne suis pas certain d'avoir versé une oeuvre du domaine public Jlvenet (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Attention, il convient d'être préçis : le droit d'auteur en Espagne est aujourd'hui de 70 ans, pas de 80. Il était de 80 ans pour les oeuvres publiées avant 1987 (ce qui est le cas de l'image). La législation consolidée espagnole est disponible, traduite en anglais sur http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=11050 --Dereckson (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oui merci, l'autre problème, le plus gênant finalement (cf ma page de discussion), c'est que nous n'arrivons pas à définir la date à laquelle cette affiche a été initialement créée. C'est entre 1915 et 1930 mais il est difficile d'être précis. Il est possible qu'elle soit antérieure à 1923 tout comme l'inverse est également possible. Gaspar Camps a créé une autre affiche pour le papier à cigarettes JOB en 1915 et réalisé d'autres travaux pour des marques de papier à cigarettes, mais pas de trace de cette affiche. Puis, dans la bibliographie de Gaspar Camps, nous trouvons bien cette affiche mais pour une marque de boisson alcoolisée (ayant utilisé le même modèle) et elle semble dater de 1930 (au vu du numéro de téléphone à Barcelone supérieur à 10000). Certes les affiches avaient de multiples tirages échelonnés dans le temps, parfois sur 10 à 20 ans mais malheureusement il ne nous est pas possible de trouver la date du tirage initial de cette rare affiche pour JOB.--Jlvenet (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- On peut tenter un contacter avec le service presse si l'entreprise existe toujours.
- Si pas nous pouvons prendre une position prudente et restaurer à la plus lointaine des dates entre 95 ans après la date maximale où il est plausible que l'affiche aie été publié (pour les US, l'affiche n'étant pas dans le domaine public en 1996) et 2023 (pour l'Espagne). Bon maintenant si la publication a eu lieu dans un autre pays que l'Espagne, sans qu'il le soit dans les 30 jours en Espagne, ce sera alors max(pub + 95, 2013) : c'est le pays de publication d'une oeuvre qui compte. --Dereckson (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Merci Dereckson. Pour le service presse de JOB je pense que nous n'aurons rien , j'avais moi-même créé un site Internet, un musée virtuel sur la Collection JOB au début des années 2000 et nous avions eu des rapports avec l'entreprise mais cette affiche n'était pas encore retrouvée. Pour le reste, je vous remercie de l'explication technique même si pour moi cela reste obscure (je ne comprends pas bien l'explication , je croyais avoir compris que pour être dans le domaine public elle devait avoir été publiée avant 1923, pardonnez mon ignorance je n'ai pas l'habitude de Commons et des droits d'auteur et je ne sais que conclure des dates que vous affichez). Tout ce que je peux dire c'est que l'affiche est une commande de JOB, entreprise française, qu'elle a été imprimée soit à Toulouse, par l'imprimerie Sirven, soit à Barcelone, où Sirven a, un temps, eu une succursale ; Gaspar Camps était directeur artistique chez Sirven (en France comme en Espagne). L'entreprise Sirven n'existe plus. Seul Gaspar Camps a des descendants, à Barcelone et la biographe Gloria Escala i Romeu a écrit un livre bien documenté en catalan.Mais que cette affiche était destinée à l'export puisque le slogan, qui doit vouloir dire fumez le JOB (enfin supposition) est en arabe, il me semble. Et le reste je l'ai déjà écrit (JOB a passé au moins une commande à Gaspar Camps en 1915, sans certitude que cette affiche y figure, et cette affiche a été utilisée par d'autres marques,notamment en 1930 pour une marque d'anis). Qu'en conclure ? --Jlvenet (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- La matière est en effet complexe.
- Chaque pays a une législation différente, avec une durée de droit d'auteur (et donc une date d'entrée dans le domaine public) différente.
- Wikimedia Commons a choisi de respecter pour chaque photo deux législations :
- (1) Le droit US, où en effet toute photo publiée avant 1923 est dans le domaine public ;
- (2) Le droit du pays d'origine de la photo. J'aurais tendance à choisir arbitrairement la France, s'agissant d'une production de quelqu'un semblant résider en France pour une entreprise française: je présume que même si la publication visait un pays parlant l'arabe, l'affiche fera au même moment l'objet d'une publication quelque part en France chez JOB pour montrer l'affiche au sein de l'entreprise.
- Pourriez-vous me donner votre meilleure estimation de la tranche d'années où la photo a plus que très probablement été publiée ou cela reste en conclusion 1915-1930 ? --Dereckson (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour, j'ai étudié à nouveau la question mais malheureusement sur la base des éléments factuels dont je dispose je ne peux être plus précis que : "première publication entre 1915 et 1930." --Jlvenet (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete En résumé, l'image n'est pas dans le domaine public aux Etats-Unis, ou du moins a des risques de ne pas l'être. Il faut supprimer la page--Jlvenet (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Voici la synthèse de toutes mes recherches. Cette affiche a été imprimée par Sirven à Toulouse, ce qui laisserait à penser une édition vers 1915 mais la seule référence précise à cette affiche, à ce jour, est celle figurant dans le livre de Gloria Escala I Romeu, Gaspar Camps, Gent Nostra, Infiesta Editor, lien éditeur=http://www.gentnostra.cat, année=2004, page 77, isbn 8493358908, où l'affiche est présentée pour une publicité Anis Antich avec une adresse et un numéro de téléphone à Barcelone, Telephono 10165. Après recherches, ce numéro était attribué à Barcelone vers 1930 mais pas avant 1923. En conséquence, comme il n'a vraiment pas été possible de trouver une preuve ancienne de tirage, pas avant 1923, il est malheureusement nécessaire de supprimer cette photo. Je propose la clôture de la discussion et le retrait de cette photo (que j'avais moi-même versée), un administrateur pour s'en charger ? --Jlvenet (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour, j'ai étudié à nouveau la question mais malheureusement sur la base des éléments factuels dont je dispose je ne peux être plus précis que : "première publication entre 1915 et 1930." --Jlvenet (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pourriez-vous me donner votre meilleure estimation de la tranche d'années où la photo a plus que très probablement été publiée ou cela reste en conclusion 1915-1930 ? --Dereckson (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Merci Dereckson. Pour le service presse de JOB je pense que nous n'aurons rien , j'avais moi-même créé un site Internet, un musée virtuel sur la Collection JOB au début des années 2000 et nous avions eu des rapports avec l'entreprise mais cette affiche n'était pas encore retrouvée. Pour le reste, je vous remercie de l'explication technique même si pour moi cela reste obscure (je ne comprends pas bien l'explication , je croyais avoir compris que pour être dans le domaine public elle devait avoir été publiée avant 1923, pardonnez mon ignorance je n'ai pas l'habitude de Commons et des droits d'auteur et je ne sais que conclure des dates que vous affichez). Tout ce que je peux dire c'est que l'affiche est une commande de JOB, entreprise française, qu'elle a été imprimée soit à Toulouse, par l'imprimerie Sirven, soit à Barcelone, où Sirven a, un temps, eu une succursale ; Gaspar Camps était directeur artistique chez Sirven (en France comme en Espagne). L'entreprise Sirven n'existe plus. Seul Gaspar Camps a des descendants, à Barcelone et la biographe Gloria Escala i Romeu a écrit un livre bien documenté en catalan.Mais que cette affiche était destinée à l'export puisque le slogan, qui doit vouloir dire fumez le JOB (enfin supposition) est en arabe, il me semble. Et le reste je l'ai déjà écrit (JOB a passé au moins une commande à Gaspar Camps en 1915, sans certitude que cette affiche y figure, et cette affiche a été utilisée par d'autres marques,notamment en 1930 pour une marque d'anis). Qu'en conclure ? --Jlvenet (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oui merci, l'autre problème, le plus gênant finalement (cf ma page de discussion), c'est que nous n'arrivons pas à définir la date à laquelle cette affiche a été initialement créée. C'est entre 1915 et 1930 mais il est difficile d'être précis. Il est possible qu'elle soit antérieure à 1923 tout comme l'inverse est également possible. Gaspar Camps a créé une autre affiche pour le papier à cigarettes JOB en 1915 et réalisé d'autres travaux pour des marques de papier à cigarettes, mais pas de trace de cette affiche. Puis, dans la bibliographie de Gaspar Camps, nous trouvons bien cette affiche mais pour une marque de boisson alcoolisée (ayant utilisé le même modèle) et elle semble dater de 1930 (au vu du numéro de téléphone à Barcelone supérieur à 10000). Certes les affiches avaient de multiples tirages échelonnés dans le temps, parfois sur 10 à 20 ans mais malheureusement il ne nous est pas possible de trouver la date du tirage initial de cette rare affiche pour JOB.--Jlvenet (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not yet in public domain. Author is dead in 1942, not yet in public domain in source country in 1996, so will be in public in US domain 95 years after publication. In the worst case, publication date is 1930. So to restore in 2026. --Dereckson (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Private pictures of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Assuming the diagram is the property of Mindanao, why is that exempt from copyright? Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it's not Mindanao. It's the Mindanao Development Authority that own's the file. It's a government office under the Republic of the Philippines. The framework is considered "for public use". This is a democratic country and we can share this framework to anybody.
Deleted -FASTILY 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong version (the File:Flag of Tbilisi.svg has the correct amount of points on stars). not in use. {{Vva}} 93.132.83.238 13:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
1988 modern art sculpture. Unfortunately no Freedom of Panorama in the US. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- This picture, at least on two of the articles it is on, could fall under fair use. Is there any way to transfer it to regular wikipedia and add a fair use tag?--Found5dollar (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom. no FoP provision for sculpture in U.S. could be potentially used under another project with fair use but not on Commons. Warfieldian (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1988 statue in the United States. Per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, this is an unpublished statue. {{PD-US-1978-89}} only applies to published works. Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. "This definition of publication requires more than displaying a work to the public: it requires that individuals gain a possessory interest in a tangible copy of the work as a “transfer of ownership.”" The statue was created by the sculptor and transferred (change of possession) to the City of Wakefield. All I can say is "wow", if this is how you interpret US copyright law I fear that all of your edits may need to be reviewed for mistaken deletions and vindictive nominations (as this one clearly was). Keep --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is wrong, then I suggest that you start a discussion at COM:VPC about that, since there are lots of deletion discussions all of the time which are based on that page. I am not convinced that you could say that tangible copies have been sold to the public. One copy was sold to the City of Wakefield, but other people were not offered a copy of the work. I'm not sure if the use of a plural form in s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101 is relevant, but the last sentence in the definition is certainly relevant: "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
- If you visit a monument such as w:The Little Mermaid (statue) or the w:Eiffel Tower, then you will frequently find sellers around the monument selling 3D miniature copies of the monument. I believe that this is what counts as publication under the Copyright Act of 1976 and that you would have to show that sellers have offered copies of this work in a similar fashion if you wish to claim that {{PD-US-1978-89}} applies to the work. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- no, PD-US-1978-89, does not apply to published works alone. rather, one could find a published derivative of this work in the newspaper, or dedication program which would qualify as publication. a higher bar than pre-1978, but not impossible. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I am torn here. On the one hand, this image was deleted by me after due process in 2011. Bobak uploaded it again without an UnDR or other process, which is a serious violation of our rules. The image is, therefore, a candidate for {{Speedy}}. On the other hand, the fact that it was installed in 1988 without registration or copyright notice makes it, according to my reading of the law, PD.
If we accept Stefan's reading of the rule, the statue will never be published and, therefore, have an indefinite copyright. That would be a violation of the Copyright clause in the US Constitution, which calls for "limited times". Our general rule has been that if a work is to remain unpublished, the owner must enforce a rule against making of copies, both 3D and 2D. Having seen the usual souvenirs around the world, I would be very surprised if there were not miniatures and postcards of this work available. At http://www.bobclendenin.com/The%20USA/Peter%20Toth/Peter%20Toth%20Page%204/Peter%20Toth%20page%204.htm, the writer mentions such a postcard. The point though, is not that models or postcards are actually offered, but that nothing is done to prohibit them. Clearly copyright cannot hinge on whether vendors find it commercially reasonable to sell copies of a work. Therefore, I think this is a Keep. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted monument by Drago Tršar. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Drago Tršar. Eleassar (t/p) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep per COM:DM. The monument is not important it is the picture of protests. Picture could not be taken in any other way. --Miha (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, turning the camera a few degrees to the left or downwards would be too tiresome... It is clear on the first sight that the monument is important. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The mask is work by Matija Solce. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep The monument is dark, out of focus and in the background (DM), protest(ers) are clearly in the focus. --Sporti (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Clearly it is important the protesters gathered themself at the Monument of Revolution made by Tršar. It's has a clear symbolic meaning. It was necessary to depict the monument becasue this photo wouldn't have the same meaning without it. However my intention was not to depict the architecture itself, but the public event at the exact location – at the monument which is—as Sporti has already pointed out—shown in insufficient clarity. Therefore DM rule applies.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 21:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually this makes DM "very unlikely" per Commons:De minimis: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." --Eleassar (t/p) 22:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You misread. Monument isn't the reason for taking the photo, protesters gathered at its location are. It makes DM "maybe" (Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (eg blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply). M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok,
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 23:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok,
- You misread. Monument isn't the reason for taking the photo, protesters gathered at its location are. It makes DM "maybe" (Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (eg blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply). M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As above. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Renominating this case after a further look at COM:DM. In my opinion, although the reason for taking the photo was not the sculpture, the sculpture is the key part of the photo, similar to File:Carla del Ponte Mladic 1.jpg mentioned in the guiideline as "very unlikely DM". Like that image was used in an article about Mladić, this one has been used to illustrate the work by D. Tršar in sl:Drago Tršar. Although one could remove the sculpture, this would make the photo radically different. As stated, the monument "has a clear symbolic meaning. It was necessary to depict it because this photo wouldn't have the same meaning without it." Let's clarify this before the image is promoted to the FP status. Eleassar (t/p) 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
1987 item in the United States. Per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, this is unpublished. {{PD-US-1978-89}} only applies to published works. Stefan4 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. "This definition of publication requires more than displaying a work to the public: it requires that individuals gain a possessory interest in a tangible copy of the work as a “transfer of ownership.”" The statue was created by the sculptor and transferred (change of possession) to the City of Hillsboro. Keep. --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is wrong, then I suggest that you start a discussion at COM:VPC about that, since there are lots of deletion discussions all of the time which are based on that page. I am not convinced that you could say that tangible copies have been sold to the public. One copy was sold to the City of Wakefield, but other people were not offered a copy of the work. I'm not sure if the use of a plural form in s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101 is relevant, but the last sentence in the definition is certainly relevant: "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
- If you visit a monument such as w:The Little Mermaid (statue) or the w:Eiffel Tower, then you will frequently find sellers around the monument selling 3D miniature copies of the monument. I believe that this is what counts as publication under the Copyright Act of 1976 and that you would have to show that sellers have offered copies of this work in a similar fashion if you wish to claim that {{PD-US-1978-89}} applies to the work. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - OK, to start with, Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US doesn't do anything for me, as it is basically an essay, or as it says at the beginning, it is a starting point. Now 17 USSC 101 is informative and instructive, but when reading statutes, you have to parse the entire thing, and sometimes take into account the legislative history. Case law here is also somewhat helpful.
- Basically what "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." is getting at is, you cannot simply say a pictorial/graphic/sculptural work was put on public display and thus it was published. But that's it. It does not say the opposite. Or, in other words, putting it on public display could be publication, it is just not automatic. So, if you review the pictorial/graphic/sculptural works and cases that discuss what constitutes publication based upon the pre-1976 Copyright Act (including the Oscar one, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1991)) you see the courts struggling with the issue of what is and what is not publication when it comes to sculptures. Basically they came up with a general versus limited publication. General would mean it was published and entered the public domain, and limited would mean it was not published. Generally, what the courts found was in essence the intent of the public display. Where an artwork was in a gallery where photos were not allowed and the display itself was limited, that was not publication. For the Oscar case, there was no permanent public display of the Oscar statue, thus it was not published. Now obviously cases decided under prior laws may have been superseded by statute, but I don't think so as to this particular aspect. And, I think the analysis/test remains sound.
- In the situation here, the sculpture was put on permanent display in public with great fanfare and media coverage (it is visible from a major public highway). Toth donated the sculpture and I do not believe ever had any intention to copyright this or any of the other similar sculptures on the Trail of the Whispering Giants. As was covered at a prior discussion on one of the photos for this same sculpture, Toth did copyright his book. That is, he consciously did not copyright this sculpture. So, here, we have a general display with no intent to copyright the work, thus, I think it was a publication in 1986. M.O. Stevens 09:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The case you are quoting was about publication before 1978. That's why you are talking about general versus limited publication. According to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, the old system with general versus limited publication if the activity occurred before 1978, whereas the new system (17 U.S.C. 101) is used if the activity occurred after 1977. Since this sculpture was something which was not exhibited until after 1977, you need to compare with cases using the new system and not cases using the old system. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, yeah, I know, that's why I said: "Now obviously cases decided under prior laws may have been superseded by statute, but I don't think so as to this particular aspect. And, I think the analysis/test remains sound." So, I'll stick to my training as an attorney and not some opinion piece on Commons. To which the only case I see post-1978 is the Korean War Memorial one, and that was created in 1990, which is after the 1989 change and the sculpture was registered, which is rather different than the situation at bar. M.O. Stevens 16:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- no, PD-US-1978-89, does not apply to published works alone. rather, one could find a published derivative of this work in the newspaper, or dedication program which would qualify as publication. a higher bar than pre-1978, but not impossible. if you would work with uploaders to fix the license, maybe we could get more work done. how about a migrate to english as "fair use"? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, yeah, I know, that's why I said: "Now obviously cases decided under prior laws may have been superseded by statute, but I don't think so as to this particular aspect. And, I think the analysis/test remains sound." So, I'll stick to my training as an attorney and not some opinion piece on Commons. To which the only case I see post-1978 is the Korean War Memorial one, and that was created in 1990, which is after the 1989 change and the sculpture was registered, which is rather different than the situation at bar. M.O. Stevens 16:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The case you are quoting was about publication before 1978. That's why you are talking about general versus limited publication. According to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, the old system with general versus limited publication if the activity occurred before 1978, whereas the new system (17 U.S.C. 101) is used if the activity occurred after 1977. Since this sculpture was something which was not exhibited until after 1977, you need to compare with cases using the new system and not cases using the old system. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Slowking4 put it best: PD-US-1978-89 is not applicable in this situation. If anyone would like to transwiki this under fair use, drop me a message on my talk page FASTILY 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) 1
[edit]Is this place public?
- File:Berlin dome.JPG
- File:BERLIN REICHSTAG FOSTER INNEN.jpg
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 001.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 002.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 003.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 004.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 005.JPG
- File:Berlin's Reichstag dome.JPG
- File:Berlin-Reichstag dome interior.jpg
- File:Berlin-reichstag-kuppel.JPG
- File:Berlin.Reichstagsgebaeude.Kuppelspitze.JPG
- File:Berlin.Reichstagskuppel.JPG
- File:Bundestag cupola internal.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 1.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 2.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 3.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 25.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 29.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 30.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 31.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 32.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 34.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 35.JPG
- File:Cúpula Reichstag Berlin.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1823.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1829.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1852.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 5891.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 5892.jpg
- File:Dome of the Reichstag.jpg
- File:Germany berlin reichstag-spiral.jpg
- File:In der Kuppel des Reichstags - geo-en.hlipp.de - 13869.jpg
- File:In der Kuppel des Reichstags - geo-en.hlipp.de - 13870.jpg
- File:In der Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 1.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 2.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 3.jpg
- File:Inside the reichstag.jpg
- File:Jimbo on Reichstag.jpg
- File:Kuppel im Reichstag.jpg
- File:Kuppel Reichstag.JPG
- File:Liegeplätze Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:Reichs dome 1.JPG
- File:Reichs dome 2.JPG
- File:Reichs dome.JPG
- File:Reichstag - coupole.JPG
- File:Reichstag Berlin 1.jpg
- File:Reichstag Berlin 2.jpg
- File:Reichstag Berlin.jpg
- File:Reichstag coupole.jpg
- File:Reichstag Cupola inside.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome - Panorama.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bench 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bench 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bottom window section.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkway 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkway 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkways 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkways 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 4.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 10.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 11.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 12.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 13.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 14.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 15.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 5.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 6.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 8.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 9.JPG
- File:Reichstag-5-033.jpg
- File:Reichstag-646.jpg
- File:Reichstag-interno-cupola.jpg
- File:Reichstag-Kuppel-147.jpg
- File:ReichstagDomeInside.jpg
- File:Reichstage dome ein.jpg
- File:Reichstage dome zwei.jpg
- File:Reichstagkuppel kasselgalerie de.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 1-Berlin.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 2.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 3.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel innen.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel Innnansicht.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:SarahEwart-075.JPG
- File:SarahEwart-076.jpg
- File:Sonnenuntergang in der Reichstagskuppel.JPG
- File:Spiegel in der Reichstagkuppel - 2.jpg
- File:Spiegel in der Reichstagskuppel - 1.jpg
- File:Öffnung der Reichstagskuppel.jpg
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_1823.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_1829.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_1852.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_5891.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_5892.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with German law. However, these photos are taken in a German government building. I believe that that is considered a public place under US law.
Plus, ask yourself: would the German government ever ask Wikipedia to remove pictures of their capitol building??? The law seems in place to prevent people from spying on other people's private property - not to prevent photos of tourist attractions. --ThePlaz (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Reichstag Cupola is a huge tourist attraction and provides observation all over Berlin. If that doesn't count as "public", idk what does. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also, public access is free, which is why you see so many people there in the photos. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Fry1989. --Danny (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the author of one of these pictures. I'm certain this Dome is both "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible". It's a famous tourist spot. Dodoïste (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Commons page on FOP (I have already linked to it) says "“Public,” here, is not to be understood in a public-law sense" and "In the literature, station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public." Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Further, I kindly advice to make such mass DR less "massive" as they can become confusing for the admin due to their dimension. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) 2
[edit]Same issue as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior. Copyrighted architectural work, only photos of which taken from the street are covered by Panorama Freedom, whereas any free licensed distribution of interior views needs a permission by Foster.
- File:Reichstagsgebäude - Glaskuppel - Spiegeltrichter.jpg
- File:Berlin dome.JPG
- File:BERLIN REICHSTAG FOSTER INNEN.jpg
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 001.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 002.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 003.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 004.JPG
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebäude Kuppel 005.JPG
- File:Berlin's Reichstag dome.JPG
- File:Berlin- The Norman Foster redesigned German Bundestag - 3861.jpg
- File:Berlin-Reichstag dome interior.jpg
- File:Berlin-reichstag-kuppel.JPG
- File:Berlin.Reichstagsgebaeude.Kuppelspitze.JPG
- File:Berlin.Reichstagskuppel.JPG
- File:Bundestag cupola internal.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 1.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 2.jpg
- File:Bundestag InnenArchitektur 3.JPG
- File:Bundestag von Innen.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 25.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 29.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 30.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 31.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 32.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 34.JPG
- File:Cupola inside Reichstagkuppel 35.JPG
- File:Cúpula Reichstag Berlin.jpg
- File:D-BE-Berlin - Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1823.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1829.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 1852.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 5891.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 5892.jpg
- File:Dome of the Reichstag.jpg
- File:Dome of the Reichstag0459.JPG
- File:Dome of the Reichstag0464.JPG
- File:Dome of the Reichstag0467.JPG
- File:Dome of the Reichstag0468.JPG
- File:Dome of the Reichstag0473.JPG
- File:Germany berlin reichstag-spiral.jpg
- File:In der Kuppel des Reichstags - geo-en.hlipp.de - 13869.jpg
- File:In der Kuppel des Reichstags - geo-en.hlipp.de - 13870.jpg
- File:In der Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 1.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 2.jpg
- File:Inside the Reichstag building in Berlin 3.jpg
- File:Inside the reichstag.jpg
- File:Jimbo on Reichstag.jpg
- File:Kuppel im Reichstag.jpg
- File:Kuppel Reichstag.JPG
- File:Liegeplätze Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:Reichs dome 1.JPG
- File:Reichs dome 2.JPG
- File:Reichs dome.JPG
- File:Reichstag (559617002).jpg
- File:Reichstag (559983407).jpg
- File:Reichstag (560012297).jpg
- File:Reichstag - coupole.JPG
- File:Reichstag - dome (inside).JPG
- File:Reichstag Berlin 1.jpg
- File:Reichstag Berlin 2.jpg
- File:Reichstag Berlin.jpg
- File:Reichstag coupole.jpg
- File:Reichstag Cupola inside.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome - Panorama.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bench 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bench 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome bottom window section.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkway 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkway 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkways 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome circular walkways 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag dome interior cone 4.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 1.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 10.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 11.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 12.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 13.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 14.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 15.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 2.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 3.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 5.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 6.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 8.JPG
- File:Reichstag Inside Dome 9.JPG
- File:Reichstag Kuppel Fraktionsebene 2.jpg
- File:Reichstag Kuppel Fraktionsebene.jpg
- File:Reichstag Kuppel innen.JPG
- File:Reichstag sunset.JPG
- File:Reichstag Upper Decks View.jpg
- File:Reichstag-5-033.jpg
- File:Reichstag-646.jpg
- File:Reichstag-interno-cupola.jpg
- File:Reichstag-Kuppel-147.jpg
- File:ReichstagDomeInside.jpg
- File:Reichstage dome ein.jpg
- File:Reichstage dome zwei.jpg
- File:Reichstagkuppel kasselgalerie de.jpg
- File:Reichstagsgebäude - Glaskuppel - Rundgang mit Infotafeln.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 1-Berlin.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 2.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel 3.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel innen.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel Innnansicht.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:SarahEwart-075.JPG
- File:SarahEwart-076.jpg
- File:Sonnenuntergang in der Reichstagskuppel.JPG
- File:Spiegel in der Reichstagkuppel - 2.jpg
- File:Spiegel in der Reichstagskuppel - 1.jpg
- File:Spiegelung in der Reichstagskuppel.jpg
- File:View on Bundestag's dome construction from within the dome.jpg
- File:Öffnung der Reichstagskuppel.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: I just saw that there already was a DR on files in the same category and for the same reason. However, reading COM:FOP#Germany and knowing the procedure of how to get to this place I cannot follow the argumentation of previous "keep" voters. Even for actually permamently & free accessible places like train stations etc. it is at least controversial whether they may be considered as a public place. If you want, however, to visit the gallery and the dome of the Reichstag, you have to: 1) register via internet days before (or even weeks, if you want to get there at a comfortable daytime); 2) show your ID card at the entrance; 3) pass a security check like by checking-in at airport. Frankly, I doubt that a German court would declare *such* a place as public place in the sense of the Germany UrhG. --A.Savin 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The measures you describe are in no way intentended to deny access to the public in any way, but are intended on the contrary to faciltate access to the public in a high security area with heavy public traffic. So a court would see no reason to deem *this* place not public. --Wuselig (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No idea what makes you that sure about what a court would see. Maybe you read COM:FOP#Germany thoroughly, especially its first passage. --A.Savin 21:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you doubt and argue with restrictions that are no restrictions but only crowd management and security meassures. So yes, I contest that your doubt is better than mine, and I have no idea what makes you so sure why a court should rule in your way. The dome is "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible", so where do you see a contradiction to COM:FOP#Germany? --Wuselig (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see at least a significant question mark, because "property of the state" does not necessarily mean "public place", and Commons has its Precautionary principle. Similar images already have been deleted, so, btw, we should be consequent, or discuss it all at COM:UD. --A.Savin 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you doubt and argue with restrictions that are no restrictions but only crowd management and security meassures. So yes, I contest that your doubt is better than mine, and I have no idea what makes you so sure why a court should rule in your way. The dome is "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible", so where do you see a contradiction to COM:FOP#Germany? --Wuselig (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No idea what makes you that sure about what a court would see. Maybe you read COM:FOP#Germany thoroughly, especially its first passage. --A.Savin 21:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The measures you describe are in no way intentended to deny access to the public in any way, but are intended on the contrary to faciltate access to the public in a high security area with heavy public traffic. So a court would see no reason to deem *this* place not public. --Wuselig (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Savin is taking the precautonary principle much too far. There must be some reason why Foster is not known to ever have tried to cash in for such views, probably simply because he is not at all keen on it. No harm has been done by these images or is likely to ever emerge, so Keep them all. One could try and ask Foster for a permission, though. That would settle it once and for all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Foster is not known to ever have tried to cash in => COM:PRP # 3, I guess? --A.Savin 09:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't read quite to the to the end of my posting. I think this cupola is important enough as one of the best-known symbols of Germany and Berlin that we should take action. I'd propose a formal question by Wikimedia to Sir Norman, to get some sort of permission. --FA2010 (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - I cannot find "your posting" you're talking about? --A.Savin 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Only for info without voting for something: Pictures within the Dome are not public in meaning of the Copyright. So, Freedom of Panorama (FOP) cannot be used to argument for keeping. For buildings, only exterior-view can be explicitly used for FOP, interior-war is not free to use. That it is a high-known building and tourist can on some time visit it, is not an argument. But we should look carefully: Files like File:Reichstag-Kuppel-147.jpg have no threshold of originalty, so there is no need to delete (for 1, 2 … not all files I checked, too) for copyright violation. --Quedel (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As per A.Savin, it is disputed whether the interior of the Reichstag can be considered a freely accessible public location. Unless we know in certainty, with credible, written, textual evidence proving that the interior is covered by FOP, we default to COM:PCP. -FASTILY 23:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)