This image was moved here from en.wp, where the original source (now in a deleted revision) notes that the photo is from here. Nowhere on the photo section of the Colombian government web site is there an indication that the photo is in the public domain, and indeed, the photo was speedily deleted from en.wp as a copyright violation on 22 Aug 2007. RG207:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted on en.wp in Sept 2007 as an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. Clearly, there's not enough indication that this is a public domain image for the Commons, either. RG207:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a photo of newspaper and calling it free is akin to taking a photo of a book, of a television screen, or even of another photo and calling it free, in that none of these actually are. RG209:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A newspaper page is a copyrightable work. A photo of a newspaper page is therefore a photo of a copyrighted work and, hence, is an unlicensed derivative work. Commons does not permit the uploading of derivative works of works which are still in copyright, so this picture should be deleted. -- Arvind00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Unless the newspaper shown was also released under GFDL, in which case attribution should go to the newspaper author.) Seems clear case of derivitive work. -- Infrogmation02:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, false PD-self (one of many by this uploader despite multiple warnings). No evidence of free licence on source website. Speedy delete ok. -- Infrogmation17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple modification of the original work which can be recreated should it evr be needed. --Simonxag 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Silliness not appropriate for Wikimedia projects. -- Infrogmation03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that is a blog with same name as uploader. Still unclear if that is the original source; in any case per nom the big water mark is too problematic on its own. -- Infrogmation21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the name coincidence enough to prove anything? It seems pretty easy to register here with a random name, doesn't it? --Dodo09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been a week. If uploader wishes to release under a compatible license, s/he can upload it without the watermark. Patstuart07:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering... How did you make out Image:Felipe Pérez Roque - UN.jpg was from EFE? I perfectly knew that EFE's photos weren't under 20 minutos's license. Nonetheless, I didn't find a statement that in fact it was EFE's photo. In fact, in the piece of news, it never credits EFE as author of the photo, so I guessed it was from 20m... - Julian's Rock(tell me)21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: Besides, EFE's photos are usually better... xD)[reply]
Delete Can't find the logo on the website (but in that case is it useful?). The comment translates as "Pi Jiwang promotes the plan freely", but I think we'd need something a little more convincing in the way of permission if we were to keep this. --Simonxag11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like more source information to put the picture in context, but I don't think this looks like a copyright violation. As for genuineness, the Ancient Egyptian religion was very sex-positive, so it could well be for real. What became of the original image? I can't find it's deletion. Was it deleted as a fake, because it was of poor quality or because it was "pornographic"? --Simonxag19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can confirm that the image is an exact b/w copy of plate 6 of the and that it has not been altered to show something that's not in the original. In other words, the image is not a fake. However, It's not fellatio; this scene is represented many times in ancient Egyptian books of the dead and I've never seen one show the woman with her lips up to the mummy quite like this one. If anything, the image needs to be retitled if possible, so it's not misleading. For the record, nothing in the current image title is correct: the mummy is that of Ani, the woman is his wife Tutu; a priest in a mask holds the mummy. (For more, see here) Jeff Dahl03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really complicated. This is very likely a press photo from 1917. It's featured in a gazillion places, but of course only Wikimedia makes some sort of effort to correctly state sources :P. I'll try to dig a bit more into this; if it is a press photo, it's unlikely that we can find out who was the author, so {{Anonymous-EU}} would be applicable. Patríciamsg23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication author died 50 years ago; it is irrelevant, as this appears to be UK, in which case we'd have no indication author died 70 years ago --Patstuart22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the image over from the English wikipedia with all its information. There is no indication that this photo was taken in UK (most probably ist was taken in the USA). It is stated in the origianal image text that the author died at least 50 years ago. --MartinHansV08:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess you're referring to the images and not the category itself, though this would be rendered useless after image deletion. I'm inclined to delete, since the main focus of the images is architectural aspects, and indeed there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Patríciamsg22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source says this image is "Free-for-commercial-use." However, we have no information on other use, restrictions on modification, and such. RG207:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to Delete, there is indeed no information about other restrictions. Would it be worthwhile to contact the author, though? He seems to be involved in the GNU movement - perhaps he would agree licensing his photos with a copyleft license. Patríciamsg22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License status unclear, unknown source. The stated page gives www.fdch.com to order the video, if following you comes to http://orders.voxant.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=3 which says *Business Use videos include necessary copyright licenses for non-broadcast, non-duplication, non-Internet posting, business use of videos for training, R&D, corporate archives, and client presentations.
Keep-Please notice that all objections made by GeorgHH have been rectified on the image page. The license status is now clear with the removal of the GFDL tag and retaining of the PD because tag. The rationale and description sections have been revamped with clarifications to eliminate confusion over ownership of the video source and include a link to the Texas Public Information Act that documents why the reporter in the cited CNN interview would professionally used the phrase "public domain" when refering to materials released by the Attorney General of Texas. Thomas Anderson19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GeorgHH,
You hastily misunderstood the free use rationale and the video source of the Yates image. The image of Yates did not come from a CNN video of one of their broadcasts. It came from a public domain video not belonging to CNN.
The www.fdch.com link is for -CNN- owned video transcripts of -their- programs. The Yates jail psychiatric interview video is not property of CNN. The CNN article was only cited to prove the video of Yates (state's evidence) was released by the Texas DA into public domain. As such, a frame grab of a public domain video falls under the terms of free use and should be allowed for use in Wikipedia.
Yates was not interviewed by CNN. The image was not part of their video which falls under their copyright terms described in the links you provided above. The links are not associated with state's evidence video released into public domain.
Delete - uploader is not understanding the definition of "public domain". Public domain doesn't mean many people are using it, it menas that anybody can use it for free, for any purpose, without needing to worry about copyrights. Patstuart07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rescinded, this is becoming too complicated and making my head hurt. I can't figure out what's "public domain" and what's not. Patstuart19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patstuart, you are assuming I do not understand the definition of public domain,. When the state of Texas places a document into public domain, it means anyone can use it freely according to their freedom of information policy. My rationale was never "because many people are using it." Where do you see that? The CNN reporter Hemmer described the Yates video as released into the public domain when he asked if -more- documents regarding the case will be released into the public domain. I'm taking my definition from the CNN reporter who is professionally accustomed to the most techincal meaning of "public domain" in the copyright sense. His usage of the terminology as a professional defaults its meaning to the professional definition.Thomas Anderson07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been available on the image page for the PD rationale:
This file is in the public domain', because The District Attorney's Office of Houston, TX had the Attorney General release the states evidence video of this uploaded screenshot into the public domain according to the following CNN article:
It is one of two videos mentioned in the article. Lucy Puryear is the psychiatrist interviewing Yates.
IMPORTANT: The jailhouse psychiatric interview of Yates is not property of CNN and therefore does not fall under the copyright terms of CNN owned video transcripts of its programing. The CNN Article was only cited here to prove the state of Texas released this states evidence video of Yates into public domain, and as such a frame grab is also public domain and qualifies for free use in Wiki.
Certain information, such as state's evidence is excluded from public access according to the Texas Public Information Act until the Attorney General authorizes its release. When it is released, it becomes "public domain" by said policy, and the gov't is specifically restricted from asking how that material shall be used and cannot refuse its use. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/og_faqs.shtml#pia A copyright holder has the right to ask how material is used and restrict who uses it, meaning the state of Texas no longer retains the copyright of material it has authorized for release under the Public Information Act of Texas.
Clearly, the documentation of the first two items mentioned in the article (which specifically includes the video of the frame grab), around the third or fourth sentence, are "released." Further down the CNN article page, the CNN reporter Hemmer asks the state prosecuter Odom if any more such documents (other evidence described by Odom as "additional videos") will be released into the "public domain." Hemmer is a professional reporter and uses such terms as "public domain" with their professional meaning.
It is indisputable that the video is public domain, and the only reason this image was originally challenged was because GeorgHH mistakenly understood the states evidence video, which was released by the Attorney General, was property of CNN, followed the link at the bottom of the page in regard to CNN transcript videos of their original broadcasts and errantly concluded that CNN copyright policy regarding videos had domain over a public domain video released by the state of Texas. Thomas Anderson22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the statement at the bottom of the CNN transcript page: "TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com" This statement only applies to the CNN broadcast scripted above it, not the videos discussed in the transcript. If it applied to videos discussed during the broadcast, the statement would read: "TO ORDER A VIDEO DISCUSSED IN THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com" Therein lies GeorgHH's misunderstanding and basis for thinking the Yates Psychiatric interview video was restricted by CNN copyright stipulations of video transcripts of their broadcasts.Thomas Anderson03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from several pages of CNN transcripts that the same statement for ordering a video transcript exists at the bottom of the page (and all such pages) but in these three examples, there is no video mentioned in the article. Therefore, one can only conclude that the statement is for a recorded copy of the CNN interview, and not any videos mentioned in the article. I don't even know why this was even brought up. It is commonly understood that such statements are for ordering transcripted copies of the broadcasted program, not videos mentioned in the article.
Could someone with a little expertise remove the GFDL tag from the Yates photo page? I only intended the PD because tag. When I uploaded the frame grab, I may have chosen the incorrect path of what was then a new and unfamiliar procedure to me designed by Wikipedians to prevent the use of certain fair use images. GeorgHH was uncertain of licensing because of this error. Once this is fixed, there should be no issues remaining with the licensing or rationale. Thanks. Thomas Anderson00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot understand how "right of access to information" means "public domain" in the sense that the produced material is not copyrighted or does not, at least, have any type of restrictions in its use (note use as opposed to access), whether in the sense of using it commercially or producing derivative work from it. If I failed to see the link between the two concepts, please do enlighten me; otherwise, I'm inclined to Delete. Patríciamsg23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia, there are no restrictions governing the use of such material according to the Texas Public Information Act. Therfore anyone, newspapers, TV, publishers and Wikipedia can use the material however they choose. The cited article of the CNN reporter talking with state officials refers to such material being released into the "public domain."
May a governmental body ask me why I want the records?
No, a governmental body is forbidden from inquiring about the purpose for which the records will be used.TX PIA Clearly, the state of Texas has surrendered its right to govern the use or purpose of such materials. In this case, the Attorney General had to authorize the video before allowing it to fall under the terms of the PIA, but the cited article from CNN makes it clear that has already happened for the video.72.64.47.14602:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. I think that Anderson is confusing public record with public domain. While the Texas Attorney General may not claim a copyright on documents released into public record, it has no legal authority to release already copyrighted works into the public domain. The copyright to these tapes is held by the state psychiatrist responsible for making them or by the state of Texas. The only way to ascertain the copyright status of this tape, or to request an explicit release, is to contact the relevant governmental body. ˉanetode╦╩16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anetode, I'm not the one who confused terms. If anyone did, then it was the professional journalist of CNN. Please read the cited CNN article. He didn't say "public record" he said "public domain," and he said it to a Texas D.A. who didn't object to that word usage. I don't think these professionals are mistaken about their word selections. I believe they meant "public domain" when they said it.
While I agree that if a clearly copyrighted work becomes "public record" under the PIA, a Harry Potter book for example, because it was evidence in a case, the copyright is still valid according to the Texas PIA. Now please think about this for a moment. That tape was made by the defense attorney's hired psychiatrist, Dr. Lucy Puryear. If it was made by her, then she would own the copyright or the defense team who paid for it would. Notice that ATTY Parnham wanted to supress the release of the video by the State of Texas because taken out of context by the media, it could create the wrong impression and alter public opinion against his client in a negative way. If Parnham or Puryear owned the copyright, they wouldn't need to surpress the release of the video to the terms of the PIA through the court, they would simply refuse that anyone could publish it in part or even in whole to any of the media who would first require their permission. That alone proves they don't have the copyright. That leaves only Texas who could hold the copyright if indeed one exists, and that would give them power to control the how the public intends to use of the video, but the Texas PIA clearly states that they have surrendered this control.Thomas Anderson07:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN transcript records an informal interview, not testimony, so I doubt the D.A. would have made sure to correct the reporter either way. Note also that in the very next question after the reporter says "public domain" he uses "public record" instead. Now consider copyright law, if the tape was made by Puryear, then she owns the copyright. In order to substantiate the public domain claim, you need either a) an explicit release from Puryear; b) verification of release into the public domain from the Attorney General's office; c) clear reference to public domain in the language of the relevant statute, or d) proof that the taped interview does not contain copyrightable content. Without any of these, we are left to assume public domain status based only on faith. ˉanetode╦╩22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain is a subset of public record. Driver's licensing and other such personal information on individuals is public record, but not public domain. You are only assuming he corrected himself. There is no evidence of such in the transcript. He can refer to the video being in both categories and still be correct. You also ignored my argument that Puryear could not own the copyright. If she did, then as part of the defense team she could simply refuse to allow anyone to broadcast it, as the defense team desired in their seeking to block this "public record" document's release into the "public domain."72.64.37.1605:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that I am assuming that the reporter corrected himself, much like you assumed that he was correct in mentioning public domain in the first place. This is the problem with using passing mentions from media interviews to attempt to prove copyright. The argument that Puryear could not own the copyright is likewise fraught with assumptions and lacking in any substantial evidence. Puryear could own the copyright, and there is no explicit release, ignoring your own statements, to prove that she does not. Again, we need better proof than "if, then" assumptions. ˉanetode╦╩15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole deletion process was started with errant assumptions initiated by a German speaking editor who assumed CNN owned the video. When that editor was shown his error, he didn't remove his deletion request. It was followed up by an assumption by another that I didn't understand the definition of "public domain" and a Portugese editor who assumed "public domain" isn't a subset of "public record." I'm surprised and baffled you haven't caught on to that yet. My sources aren't if/then assumptions, but people who know the ownership of the copyright, and they refered to it as "public domain."
The following email proves at least Dr. Lucy Puryear, whom the CNN article proves made the video, does not own the video. So hold your "delete horses" and let me follow up on her request. Of course I'm assuming Dr. Puryear knows she doesn't own the copyright when she says so.
> Name: Tom
> Email:
>
> Comments:
>
> Who owns the copyright to the video interview you made of Andrea
Yates
> shortly after her incarceration?
>
> If it is "public domain" and has no copyright, I would appreciate
knowing
> that as well.
>
> Thank you
>
I believe it is "public domain", but you would need to check with her
Thanks for following up with the contact. This is the sort of proof I was talking about. Are you going to e-mail Parnham? If so, please forward the exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Someone at OTRS will file a ticket to verify the licensing details. After that, the whole deletion discussion will be moot. ˉanetode╦╩22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, the Portuguese editor, and I guess the German one too, will be grateful to see that permission. BTW, I have OTRS access, I can close the request with a permission as soon as you get it and send it. Regards. Patríciamsg22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Parnham through his paralegal if he owned the copyright. He responded in a round about way. First he thanked me for the help I provided his Private Investigator during the case, but he said the video was a "psychiatric interview," and as such "requires authorization," then he asked me to understand. He didn't say from whom the authorization should come (Dr. Puryear didn't express any need for authorization from her) or whether or not he owned the copyright. This is consistent with his desire expressed in the CNN transcript for the video not to be released by the State of Texas, and I think he was using court room speak tactics to stop the use of the video without having the copyright authority to do so. Maybe he does own the copyright, but he could have clearly said he did, and that he doesn't want to authorize its use in this case. I wrote again asking for clarification on who owns the copyright, but in reflection, since he seems concerned that any use of the video is not beneficial to his client, I'm inclined not to use it since it was only my intention to convey how sick the woman was (which I thought was consistent with his own purpose). Therefore, please delete the image promptly. I apologize for having wasted your time over this.72.64.42.10602:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong license. In the japanese Wikipedia it is tagged with {{PD}} which is not wanted here without the specific reason for PD. ALE! ¿…?13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was uploaded from the English Wiki where is a copyrighted logo Estoymuybueno 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Si en Wikipedia en inglés, el escudo de la máxima casa de estudios, la UNAM, está autorizado para publicarse ¿cual es el problema? ¿El permiso? ¿que Wikipedia no es la misma en todos los idiomas? pues sino fuera así ¿entonces porque el donativo se va para una misma cuenta? Aclárenme esta confusión que a todas luces es inaudita e inadmisible. --Guarniz05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a picture of Google Maps, because it's the typic Google Maps quality and perspektive and see at right bottom: Looks like a edited logo. Alkab21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got an answer. In short, Tiago found those photos printed among his personal belongings and thought they were from a previous trip, promptly scanned them and uploaded them; only after uploading, he realized maybe they were from Google Earth, and agrees now with the deletion. Tiago takes a lot of photos, and is a good contributor; I have no reason to doubt it was an honest mistake. I'll close this as delete. Patríciamsg16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Image donated by author" Author: Ku Ting-wei(古庭維, the chief editor of Railfan magzine RailNews in Taiwan. Is there OTRS permission available? Deadstar (msg) 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Polarlys... See User_talk:Lar#OTRS_check... my read of the OTRS ticket (which is in German... I pasted the content (except the email addy) of the email received on my page so others can comment) is that no license was granted. "OK to use on wikipedia" is not a sufficient grant. Try again to get a better license, and if not, then delete ... (note, this applies to all 4 images mentioned) ++Lar: t/c17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is not on free licence 201.27.210.179 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep The uploader has added CC share alike licence tag that indicates they were the creator of the image. Have you any evidence that this is not so? --Simonxag19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I misunderstood the deletion procedure. Well, I uploaded this images. But now I've checked with the owners and now I know it is copyrighted. So I ask to delete it, and I'm sorry for this mistake. Tomlobato 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please! Someone delete this file. It has 5 days I asked to delete, include delete and copyvio tags and til now its there. I changed the file to a blank image since it is not removed from commons. How can I speedy this process? Tomlobato
Remember, this is not a vote, only arguments count. And if it's a copyright violation, it must go, no matter how widely used is. On the other hand, what's the copyrighted image from where it was taken? -- Drini15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 217.209.116.113 has been creating MMCann pages across a lot of small wikis without content, only the picture, and he is the responible of the image being widely used (he posts it on almost any wiki).
However, the nominator doesn't provide proof the image it's a copyright violation, until it's done, I'm refraining to take a position. -- Drini16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it can be demonstrated that the image breaches copyright then, as said above by Drini, it must go but the alleged source must be produced to substantiate this. I have had a good search through Google images and a possible culprit that I could find is here. However, there is no indication that I could see that shows that the Commons picture was taken from that source rather than vice versa. What bothers me is the discussion at User talk:StaraBlazkova#Image:Madeleine McCann information.JPG which seems to contain a confession that she didn't take the original picture. BlueValour16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the discussion. Isn't User:StaraBlazkova asking whether she can truly claim that the photo was self-made, regardless of who took the photo displayed on the poster itself? Thincat13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem, the one that makes this a derivative work, is the girl's photo in the middle. This is copyrighted, because all UK works are, by law and without any action needed on the part of the artist or publisher. It's no good talking about "freedom of panorama" or "de minimis" or whatever: the central photo is what this image is about, this is a derivative image of that photo. Unless the central photo of Madeleine has been released under a free license, then this image is not under a free license and it has to be removed. The girl's family have released the picture for a specific purpose (and hence with an implicit license), but have they really released it for any purpose? Any purpose?. It can be used as "fair use" but not on the Commons. --Simonxag02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how can we rephrase it to be compatible to the GFDL? The author gave me permission to upload it to Wikipedia and someone else transferred it to Wikimedia Commons. I apologize for not doing it correctly! -HotWheels5302:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Flominator is complaining that that phrase tacked on the end, "to use in Herbie articles", may imply it can't be used for other purposes. So removing that clause (if that's ok with David Evans) would solve that problem. But I expect you would be best to get some correspondence from "David Evans" as evidence that he has indeed given permission for its release under GFDL (or other license), and file it in the OTRS system. --Tony Wills07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the idea might be that this is an old painting in the uploader's pssession. But if that is the case they mus say so, say just how old it is and give their reason for this belief. --Simonxag19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"For photographic pictures (fotografiska bilder), such as images of the press, the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969" so it's the creation date that is an issue. // Liftarn
Ah. Well, that helps out a lot (I was dearly confused). But may I ask, how does one distinguish between photographic pictures and photographic works? Patstuart16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even if we can say for sure what "picture" and "work" mean, can we be sure which this is? If it's a press photo it's presumably OK, but I've looked at the source website and there's no indication there of the circumstances in which this image was produced. --Simonxag19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it boils down to the purpose of the picture. As I understand it if the purpose was artistic it's a photographic work (fotografiskt verk), but if the purpose is to show and illustrate the subject it's a photographic picture (fotografisk bild). // Liftarn
Appears to be straight reproduction of box art, links do not appear to refer to this, and in any case copyright (and permission) would lie with the company who originally produced the product, not the person who simply photographed the box. Yottanesia18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok to delete, its one of my first uploads, i didn't know rules. ptit Raizin °° 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a RAR archive containing two Excel sheets with some names and local phone numbers. Out of project scope. Lupo22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used anywhere. File format not welcome on Common. Possibly private data that should be speedy deleted IMO. — Xavier, 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
MS Word file containing text on the Teoría Egológica del Derecho of es:Carlos Cossio. Maybe a draft for a new article at the Spanish WP (it's a redlink there). However, we're not a general file hosting provider, it appears to be untouched for months, and is unsourced. Out of project scope. Lupo23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, this seems an audacity file that depends on other external .au sound files. Should be speedy deleted. — Xavier, 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jeff G. I received three items on my talk page from you about these photos. The template says, "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry" which is here. While many years ago I had an interest in copyright that was too long ago to be of any assistance, sorry. -Susanlesch03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged this image db-author for speedy deletion because of a comment I saw somewhere. Nothing to do with copyright of the video which is a separate topic. I asked about that on the Commons Licensing page and don't see any replies yet here or there. If anyone would like to reply on this or that thread, please leave a note on my talk page if you would, as I don't plan to revisit this page otherwise. Best wishes. -Susanlesch06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jeff G. I received three items on my talk page from you about these photos. The template says, "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry" which is here. While many years ago I had an interest in copyright that was too long ago to be of any assistance, sorry. -Susanlesch03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged this image db-author for speedy deletion because of a comment I saw somewhere. Nothing to do with copyright of the video which is a separate topic. I asked about that on the Commons Licensing page and don't see any replies yet here or there. If anyone would like to reply on this or that thread, please leave a note on my talk page if you would, as I don't plan to revisit this page otherwise. Best wishes. -Susanlesch06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latter was deleted with the following comment: "09:55, 5 November 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Figura3esperanto.jpg" (Dupe of Image:KionViFarasPorEvitiTion.jpg)" --ALE! ¿…?11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is from 1936-1939. If the copyright owner is the painter, he would have to have died in 1936 (1937 if Wikipedia allows it to remain unlicensed until next 1st January) to keep the 70-years rule. If the owner is an organization, I think it would be legal from 1st January. The Spanish Ministry of Culture tags it as anonymous (1936-1939). I don't remember when Barcelona fell to the Nationalists. That would be the end of the possible dates. In one instance the rights are claimed by The Imperial War Museum--Error01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you hire someone to take a picture for you, you generally own the copyright. That's why the photographer gives you the negatives (because they have no rights over the image). --Simonxag02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live, one usually does not get the negatives, and the copyright is with the photographer. I don't know whether such portraits would count as "works made for hire" in the U.S. Lupo10:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few countries indeed do have the rule that the copyright on a photo is bound to the negatives, and is passed along when the negatives are given away. Italy once had that rule, and Chile still does, AFAIK. Most countries, however, do not have that rule at all. And anyway it appears that this is neither an Italian nor a Chilean nor a U.S. work. It's a German work (at least the subject is German), and in Germany the copyright indeed is with the photographer. DeleteLupo09:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where I live, the copyright stays with the photographer. One can not automatically assume that the copyright is transfered. --Kjetil r14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a) how do you know this is a passport photo? b) before deleting the image, we ought to make sure that passport and government photos in the said country are not in fact free. Patstuart17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List on PUI on en.wikipedia. Seems unlikely the uploader created the photo themselves, making it a copyvio of some off web source. Megapixie13:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of people have the opportunity to take a picture of the Eiffel tower. Few people get the opportunity to witness a fighter firing a rocket. Samulili19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
given the time the photo would have to have been taken and the fact the image appears to have first appeared on sale to the media it is unlikely to be the work of the US gov --Geni14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image in the book is marked as being taken from the collections of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), a part of the U.S. federal government. --Strothra00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that everything in the archives was produced by the goverment (if you think it was produced by the US goverment an explantion as to how would be of interest and would probably involve rewriteing our current history record).Geni14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ADD: there were two attempted coups by u.s. what makes us REALLY doubt it was us. cause we dont want our hands dirty.
Comment So what are the possibilities for this image and the evidence? Either a US government, or news photographer work, or what? Wondering, -- Infrogmation04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awfull watermarks that make the image useful only for marketing Beeymotorcycle.com, a business that Commons is not in. --Samulili19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. This is a photo of compact audio cassette single of Tina Turner's GoldenEye, from the movie of the same name. The card container / box and its contents and graphics were all produced in the US 1995 and are all copyrighted by Parlophone, EMI, MGM/UA, or their employees until 70 years pma, or at least until 1 January 2066. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the uploader. I'm surprised that this sort of image qualifies as a Copyvio. Would a picture of a cornflake box also qualify as copyvio? Perhaps you can direct me to a policy which discusses how pictures of products qualifies as a copyright violation. In any case, I won't object to the deletion since it's better to be safe than sorry.--89.100.136.1422:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was uploaded to no.wp on 27. jan 2004 kl. 04:06 and the source is marked on the picture page as originating from no.wp not en.wp as claimed in the deletion request. It may be that the request is correct and that the upload to no.wp was copyvio by the uploader who claims (from the deleted version of the no.wp-picture page as of 27. jan 2004 kl. 03:07) that: "Laget fra scratch av meg selv." (made from scratch by myself). Othervise this is a pourly researched deletion request. Haros17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I meant that while the image was originally from no.wp, the en.wp version was nominated for deletion as a derivative work with no information on the original source. And as an admin only on en.wp, we couldn't verify the original no.wp image description. RG201:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this image should be deleted. Maybe it wasn't well "transwikied" to en.wiki from no.wiki, but it was properly done here on Commons. Patríciamsg16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photo shows a military area (sv:Robotförsöksplats Norrland). The yellow sign on the fence seems to be a standard sign on Swedish military installations, saying that photographing of the area behind the fence is prohibited for military reasons. Although the picture probably doesn't show the most critical part of the complex, a protected military object is still a protected military object. --Essin21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow sign (wich originate from WW II!) says it's prohibited to take pictures of any activitets without permission while you are inside the fence, not outside! That interpretation have allready been tested in court. This picture shows a decomissioned robot put on a pole for a public, very static display, for everyone and anyone to see, and nothing else! You can take as many pictures as you want of it, and the fence, and the sign, and no one could care less if you also get the house in the background in it too! A matter of fact is that the entire RFN base is not the top secret place it use to be anymore. It's more of a commercial business with foreign customers on an almost weekly basis. Deleting this picture would do nothing but ridicule Swedish Wikipedia! That goes for the entirely RFN article too! --Towpilot02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does this mean that the picture is itself illegal or just the activity that produced it? Is holding or using this picture illegal under some jurisdiction? Is this a problem? I thought that the only criminal law that applied was US. (Iranian anti-porn and pro-religious laws might very awkward if we have to obey them). --Simonxag02:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed Curt Löwfenberg who took the picture. He is not to fluent in how to discuss things directly here, so I will forward his information. Not only is the picture taken where anyone can legally take a random pic, but he do in fact have a special permisson to take pictures even inside the area! This means that this very picture have by default been scrutinized and approved by authorietes for publishing anywere! So question now is, who will remove this ridicules note of deletion ASAP?--Towpilot21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Towpilot, please {{Be civil}}. There's no such thing as "ridiculous" deletion requests - there was a honest doubt about the legality of the picture and the matter is under discussion. Now, can anyone tell me the exact wording on that sign (in Swedish)? Patríciamsg16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project - the wrong #21 car was uploaded. No usable images of the other #21 car is available. Nominated for deletion by User:Royalbroil, the photographer and original uploader. The error was discovered after uploading. --Royalbroil04:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Note that the car is not an ARCA race car, but rather a car in the Mid American Stock Car Series. ARCA is nationally known and nationally televised series. Mid Am is a regional and not televised series. This car is not even a representative car from the Mid Am series - it was the car's only race during the season from a non-notable driver. Royalbroil04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it was a derivative. I never should have uploaded this image. It was a car from the wrong series that raced at that track that day. It's not usable since it a non-notable car from a non-notable driver. Royalbroil05:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, as I cannot read German, but on this image's source page on the German wikipedia, it is identified as the logo of an association of breweries, and is also claimed to be licensed under a Creative Commons license. I presume that this is an error, as logos of commercial organizations are rarely licensed in such a fashion. Seidenstud05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Self scanned. Author: unknown. If the user doesn't know the author, how do they know the image is licensed with cc-by-sa-2.0? DeleteSamulili08:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there is a German-Czech dictionary here? Delete or move to userspace - this page is out of scope where it is now. Deadstar (msg) 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar (msg) 12:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book uses some old, dialectal words, some of them are very hard understandable today. Therefore, I have added an german-czech dictionary (I cannot speak German well, thus I think it is better to create a correct de-cs dictionary, than a explanatory german one, but full of mistakes). --PAD12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the subtitle says: small german-czech dictionary. I can't see any sense of keeping something like that in a separate page. --my name13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate voting for deletion on a free image but I agree that it's of such poor quality that it's unusable. Furthermore, it's retakeable. Patríciamsg16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a GIMP source but some word processor file containing text about Bieito Romero, member of the Galician folk group es:Luar na Lubre. Untouched since March 2007. Out of project scope; should rather be an article at the Spanish WP (maybe). Lupo10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpenOffice document containing a school project (?) about asteroids, comets, and meteors; with several images of unknown provenance. Lupo11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have come from [13]. Could a Chinese speaker please translate the uploader's comments at the image description page? Lupo12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Description of this image has written clearly "cannot use for commercially", anyone can't distribute it with free licenses. And it has to concern about rights violation of portrait. --corytalk/hist/gallery20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Certainly copyvio. The user may have recorded this but can't have played all the instruments. I doubt (s)he has composed the music either. — Xavier, 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious copyvio: composer Mario Castenuovo-Tedesco (1895-1968) and performers (among them Gabriel Bianco) own the copyright. I changed this deletion request to a {{copyvio}}. — Xavier, 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blurry picture of pluche animal - from the description "baloo", which could be copyrighted through Disney (but too blurry to know for sure). Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro Subercaseaux died in 1956, not 70 years ago: . The {{PD-Chile}} tag may not apply. However, he did die before 1962, and appears to be have been died a divorced man es:Pedro Subercaseaux (at least according to my reading of the page; the position is unsourced): dying unmarried is one of the possible conditions (does divorce apply?). If this image is thus free, these images should all be so marked.
I can't follow you. Do you want to delete the works or to correct the license?
I repeat. The usa-license is irrelevant. The Chilean one applies to this case. I look Template_talk:PD-Chile
if the author died before September 16, 1962, without a surviving spouse. (he died 1956).
he divorced from her (former) wife (Elvira Lyon Otaégui) with authorization of the pope. (So he had no wife as he died.)
Under Chilean law this works are free for us.
If you want to correct the license, go on. But if you want to delete the works, you are wrong.
Saludos,
Antipatico.
Where does this "died before 1962 without a surviving spouse" come from? The Spanish text of the 1970 law given at Template talk:PD-Chile says "respecto de sus herederos, legatarios o cesionarios" (heirs, legatees, or assignees). The spouse bit was introduced only in 1992. Lupo08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
there was a law: Ley Nº 17.336, sobre Propiedad Intelectual, de 2 de octubre de 1970 (->30 years protection)
law 19.166 changed this law =>Ley Nº 17.336, tras la modificación de la Ley Nº 19.166, del 17 de septiembre de 1992:
this day (17 de septiembre de 1992) finished the 30-years protection of the works whose creator died before (1992-30years)=16 de septiembre 1962. Those works are free.
It does not matter "herederos, legatarios o cesionarios". It is free because the 30 years are over, for any claim of the "herederos, legatarios o cesionarios".
Maybe. Are you sure it shouldn't be "died before January 1, 1962"? Copyright terms usually are counted from January 1 following the event that caused the term to run. Hence they expire at the end of the year. A copyright on a work of an author who died September 16, 1962 would have expired only on December 31, 1992. Lupo14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
may be that 16 september 1962 should be the logical time for expiration of the rights. Perhaps there are another rule in the Chilean law for such issues.
El problema, Createaccount, es que la plantilla se contradice.
Si el autor falleció antes del 18 de Noviembre de 1954, sin cónyuge sobreviviente, ni hijas solteras, viudas o casadas con incapaz para todo género de trabajo vs. el autor falleció hasta el 16 de Septiembre de 1962, sin cónyuge sobreviviente. ¿Cuál es? Si tuviera una hija soltera en 1956, la licencia no bastaría según la primera frase, pero sí bastaría según la segunda. Patstuart18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
se exigen condiciones diferentes:
A=muere 16 de septiembre de 1962 o antes
B=muere 18 de noviembre de 1954 o antes
C=sin esposa aun viva al momento de morir
D=sin existir "hijas solteras, viudas o casadas con incapaz para todo género de trabajo" al momento de morir
Hay algunas sobreposiciones, por ejemplo D=>C ; B=>A ; D+B=>A+C , etc. Pero eso no nos debe interesar. Pertenecen al lastre legal chileno producido por los cambios en la ley que se adapta a las necesidades del pais.
En ninguna de las paginas que he leido aparece indicacion sobre algun descendiente. Mas aun, el se convirtio en cura y ella en monja. No creo que el Papa los hubiese divorciado si hubieran tenido descendencia.
Asi es que en nuestro caso se aplica A+C. Este caso esta contemplado en la plantilla con el numero 1:
el autor falleció hasta el 16 de Septiembre de 1962, sin cónyuge sobreviviente
para lo cual la ley prevee que la obra es de dominio publico. Creo que ya no hay impedimentos para retirar la solicitud de borrado.
Las obras de Subercaseaux están en dominio público, puesto que las leyes de derechos de autor no son retroactivas. Al morir Subercaseaux en 1954, soltero, sus obras estuvieron protegidas por hasta 25 ó 30 años según lo establecido por el DL 345 de 1925 (el cual no está disponible en internet). Así, pasaron al dominio público en 1969 ó 1974 (en este último caso, bajo los preceptos de la Ley 17.336 que asegura los 30 años). Cualquier ley posterior simplemente no afecta el hecho de que las pinturas de Subercaseaux están bajo el dominio público. --B1mbo21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(In English) The works of Subercaseaux are in the public domain because the laws of intellectual property aren't applied retroactively. When Subercaseaux died in 1954, single, his works were protected 25 or 30 years according to DL-345 or 1925 (not available in internet). So, they entered in PD in 1969 or 1974 (in the last case, they were affected by the Law 17.336 that confirms the 30 years). Any law after doesn't affect the fact that the works of Subercaseaux are in the Public Domain. Keep --B1mbo00:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep These searches lead to a very mixed bag of images. Some may be copyvios and need individually deleting and some may need deleting for other reasons (eg usability). Others won't. "Fan art" is defined on the Commons page as derivative from copyrighted material, but what uploaders have called fan art seems to be just about anything they've produced themselves. --Simonxag22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploaders call their work "fan art", they imply that they have produced derivative works themselves, and we should believe what they say (assume good faith). Teofilo12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular work is derivative of copyrighted material not freely licensed it must go. A fan drawing of Dracula (from the description in the novel) would be derivative of a PD work, an original fan drawing of a pop star would not be derivative at all. A fan drawing of a Star Wars vehicle derived exclusively from a PD patent drawing eg Image:At-at.png would be an interesting item for discussion! --Simonxag21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the info justifies its existence as being used to demonstrate the flaws in PNG rendering of SVG. Does that make it less than redundant? -Seidenstud08:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image was created by Daniel Lièvre, who many see as a pro-pedophile activist. It was used to denounce and satirize what was indeed highly authoritarian administrating, but I feel that the link between activism and criticism of administration will only serve to undermine valid criticisms against the blocking of editors who are not expressing pro-pedophile opinions, but rather pro-information and anti-hysteria leanings. Edward Sisters08:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite harmless, it's only a tiny little picture, and expression of ideas. But I won't go into rants if you decide to delete it. Relaxa e goza! 212.99.133.16511:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader claims that this photo from El Comercio, Peru, is published under GFDL. I can not find any such statement at the link provided. Thuresson20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combination of images with incompatible licenses (gfdl and many versions of cc-by and cc-by-sa). The resulting image is said to be licensed under GFDL and (many versions of) cc-by-sa, but the composing gfdl images can't be relicensed under cc-by-sa (neither the other way round). --Abu badali14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that all of the gfdl'ed sub-images are also licensed under some cc license. Maybe cc-by-sa-2.0 could serve as a "common denominator" for the resulting image. --Abu badali15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (also see my comments below) cc-by-sa is completely fine. The three licenses are not at all incompatible under cc-by-sa. GFDL says you can copy and recreate the image for any purpose, so long as it's credited, as does cc-by. It does not say that the derivatives themselves cannot be placed under a similar but different copyright (I would think that the creative commons license would be very careful to avoid such wording). cc-by-2.0 is a fine common denominator. Patstuart18:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that we can take a GFDL'ed work, modify it, and distribute the modified version under cc-by-sa? If you're right, this image is ok. But I don't think this is the case. --Abu badali14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm affraid you're wrong, according to section 4 of GNU Free Documentation License, we can't "take a GFDL'ed work, modify it, and distribute the modified version under cc-by-sa". It reads:
“
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document (...), provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License
Comment The adriana lima image is said to be gfdl'ed, cc-by, and cc-by-sa on en.wiki. It doesn't really matters where it was realeased (it could be on flickr). But either or not we believe on the user's authorship is a whole different matter... . --Abu badali19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it's marked as GFDL as well, then perhaps. What I'm proposing is that the licenses are not mutually exclusive, so it's possible to mark an image with both licenses. Patstuart18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, I believe I've found the source of your misunderstanding. Do you understand that, by marking (releasing) an image with both gfdl and cc-by-sa, you're saying that the resuser can choose which license to follow (as opposed to having to follow both licenses (what would be impossible))?
The tag on the image cleary says "You may select the license of your choice". So, the uploader is claiming that you can take that image (a derivative work of various gfdl'ed works) and use it according to cc-by-sa (the license your choice). Do you see the problem here? --Abu badali23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 2-d picture of a 2-d picture (see Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 1.JPG). Hence, the original copyright applies. The uploader has no rights to this image, and can't can't license it. There's no claim that the producer's of the event licensed the image under GFDL. --Rob03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, it would've been nice if you had notified the uploader about this deletion request. I've done that now. Lupo08:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo I did notify Jimbo about this issue, at least twice. I told him on December 26, 2006 and again on March 28, 2007. Jimbo's user page is very heavily monitored, and I knew numerous admins would see my message, as well as Mr. Wales himself, who I expected would happily take care of the issue, one way or another. --Rob02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And was uploaded by Jimbo :-) Indeed we generally consider photographs reproducing live large-screen transmissions of concert performers to be derivative works of the transmission, which is subject to the producer's copyright. Delete unless someone can demonstrate that TEDGlobal or the performer consented to these images being published as GFDL/CC-BY-2.5. Or unless Jimbo or Mike can convince us that this rule was not applicable or not needed for such cases. Lupo08:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user at the English Wikipedia pointed out that this image is pretty similar to this one, which is copyrighted. I have tried to contact Matthew Belew who authorized the use here (as Cjmarsicano did, according to a message at my en: talk page) but the mail is dead. --ReyBrujo02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now as a copyright violation. This seems a cropped image of the copyrighted one. I looked at the OTRS permissions email. It adds nothing useful to trying to understand how Matthew Belew can give explicit copyright for an image that appears to belong to someone else. If other information is obtained that explains the copyright ownership confusion then we can undelete. FloNight♥♥♥22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake; nominated by uploader. Ernest Herbert Mills was a British photographer and lived 1874 - 1942.[14] This has been moved to en-WP as {{PD-US}}. Lupo09:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Images document what seems to be a right-of-passage ritual for Polish merchant seamen. Potentially a very useful collection, especially if more information could be supplied. Would we dream of deleting this if they were "tribespeople". Should we only depict strange customs as being performed by black people and studied by white academics who are above such things. --Simonxag22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commente - Maybe someone could provide an external reference to verify that this is really some established ceremony? Tewfik18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete my pictures. These pictures are my, I don't anderstand you
He (it) is in marine traditions from many generations it polish baptism (christening) marine —the preceding unsigned comment was added byKaptin1 (talk • contribs)
Keep appears to be a ritual, not a prank. (I think there should be some type of appropriate categorization. Perhaps something like "Polish Marine ritual" within Category:Culture of Poland? )-- Infrogmation00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept: Do the people depicted know that they are going to be used to depict "typical ritual in Polish Marines"? Personality rights template seems to be in order at least. A bit more of an explanation is needed to describe the whole ritual as well. I still have doubts about the usefulness. Deadstar (msg) 11:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I've voted to keep. But if the author can't provide evidence that the subjects are happy with the photos, perhaps we could delete some, i.e. just those pictures where identifiable individuals are being humiliated (and not just oddly dressed or having zany fun). I think that should cover our moral duty to the these people and the pictures showing embarrassing acts where the victims are not identifiable would still document this aspect of what is going on. --Simonxag 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC) An online translator reveals this to be the en:Line-crossing ceremony and maybe less embarrassing for the participants than it first appears. The page was already linked to by the article in the Polish Wikipedia and I've linked the English one. --Simonxag02:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Deadstar and Simonxag the personality rights of the people in question should be considered and the pictures with identifiable individuals who did not give explicit permission for publication, should be deleted. ---Gwyndon00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the images are actually used in some encyclopedic article or at least in the main name space of some wiki project. If not: Delete for out of scope. --ALE! ¿…?08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text is written and recited by Tolkien. A priori, there is no reason for this work to be free of rights. If there is a special permission, it must be provided with the file. --— Xavier, 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source, and to use the PD-Art license we need to know either author death date or publication date. --User:G.dallorto 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edited with Photoshop, because there was no good Photo bevor. Now we've got a good one (Geburtshaus Heidegger Sonne.JPG). Users should not be confused by diffrent Images. Tischbeinahe22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edited with Photoshop, because there was no good Photo bevor. Now we've got a good one (Geburtshaus Heidegger Sonne.JPG). Users should not be confused by diffrent Images. Tischbeinahe22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not edited with Photoshop. It is still used in FR and in DE:Bilderwerkstatt and should be kept for comparison reasons. Just my 2 Eurocents. -- smial13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edited with Photoshop, because there was no good Photo bevor. Now we've got a good one (Geburtshaus Heidegger Sonne.JPG). Users should not be confused by diffrent Images. Tischbeinahe22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) Je suis l'assistant de la photographe Flore, cette photo est libre de droit. --Cadrianof
Deleted Uploader says he's an assistant of the photographer (google translation: Je suis l'assistant de la photographe Flore (Flore.ws) --> I am an assistant to the photographer Flora (Flore.ws)), so the images are not his own work. No permission. Duplicate of Image:Olga gimeno peintre.jpg --GeorgHH • talk14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2) Je suis l'assistant de la photographe Flore, cette photo est libre de droit. --Cadrianof
Deleted Uploader says he's an assistant of the photographer (google translation: Je suis l'assistant de la photographe Flore (Flore.ws) --> I am an assistant to the photographer Flora (Flore.ws)), so the images are not his own work. No permission. --GeorgHH • talk14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2) C'est un autoportrait libre de droit datant de 2007. J'ai fais les modifications necessaire. Cadrianof
Deleted Uploader says he's an assistant of the photographer (google translation: Je suis l'assistant de la photographe Flore (Flore.ws) --> I am an assistant to the photographer Flora (Flore.ws)), so the images are not his own work. No permission. --GeorgHH • talk14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files are suspected copyvios. Live-recording probably from CD, work by an living artist (de:Wiglaf Droste). No indication that the uploader and the artist are identical and that he provide the files under public domain license. User contribs and CD track list are in the same order. --GeorgHH20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not a regular here on Commons and there's no documentation on {{tfd}} about how to nominate a template a for deletion second time.
Basically, this template as it currently stands is just flat out wrong and very badly wrong at that. State seals are the works of state governments -- not of the U.S. federal government, and they cannot be assumed to be public domain on that basis.
For example, the seal of the state of Michigan is controlled by several state laws as described here. In particular, Section 5 of the Act [MCL 2.45] further regulates the use of the Great Seal. This section states that no facsimile or reproduction of the Great Seal may be used in any manner unconnected with the official business of the state. Section 6 [MCL 2.46] indicates that a violation of the Great Seal Act is a misdemeanor. If the seal were in the public domain, such restrictions on use would be meaningless. I expect that most states have similar statutes regulating their seals. To assume that simply because some U.S. embassy produced a canned informational package containing the seals that that makes the seals works of the U.S. government and therefore public domain is ridiculous. Bkonrad02:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These restrictions have nothing to do with copyright. It's an emblem law like they exist in many other countries, designed to prevent misuses of the emblem. We, however, don't "use" the seal; we show it. (If we'd replace our Commons logo with the state seal, we'd arguably be "using" it to imply some affiliation with or endorsement by the state of Michigan.) Let's stick with the en:Seal of Michigan as an example. Copyright-wise, I would think the definition of the Michigan state seal is PD. The COA dates back to 1835, the current design apparently was adopted in 1911.[16] Now, the state of Michigan may or may not have a copyright on their particular rendering of that seal, as shown e.g. at that previous link. But the rendering from the U.S. embassy in Germany, shown at Image:Michiganstateseal.jpg is, IMO, sufficiently different from that of Michigan to be eligible for its own copyright as an independent rendering of the same definition, within the bounds imposed by heraldic conventions. So, the state of Michigan cannot claim copyright on the drawing done by a U.S. federal employee (we presume) for the U.S. embassy in Germany from the PD definition of the seal. Hence I would think that the rendering at the U.S. embassy indeed is PD as a U.S. governmental work, even though the rendering from michigan.gov may be copyrighted. Just tag them with {{Insignia}} and be done with it. Well, maybe add a cautionary phrase that the PD copyright status applies only to this particular rendering of the seal. Lupo16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but confusing (as I guess just about anything regarding copyright is). If something is in the public domain, how is it possible to make any enforceable regulations governing its use? The section of the law stating that no facsimile or reproduction of the Great Seal may be used in any manner unconnected with the official business of the state seems pretty unambiguous. While I'm no lawyer, that does not seem to allow any exception for distinguishing between "show" vs. "use".
I really don't care all that much about whether the images themselves are on Commons -- My objection is that this template as it is currently phrased seems to imply that a work of state government is in the public domain by virtue of the the public domain status of works of the U.S. federal government. That seems misleading. Both Image:Michiganstateseal.jpg and Image:Michigan_state_seal.png are on commons using this template. The image from the embassy is not actually used in any article on EN:WP -- it was the other image which was apparently derived from the actual state seal that drew my attention. I'll grant the two are not identical and it could be that the embassy image is sufficiently different to constitute a distinct creation. But, if that is the case, then the embassy image is only an approximation of the actual seal. Bkonrad04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any state is free to make whatever rules it wants beyond copyright, even if such rules might restrict possible "uses" of copyright-free works. Consider the idea of the "domaine publique payant" (i.e., rules that say you have to pay a license fee to the state for uses of PD works). Thankfully this idea, although explicitly mentioned in some countries' copyright laws, didn't really catch on. Or consider {{personality rights}} issues that might make certain uses of certain images not ok. (E.g., using a PD-USGov image of the American President in an advertisement to imply your product was endorsed by him would be a singularly bad idea.) Or consider laws regulating money: even though in some countries, bank notes are explicitly not copyrighted (Switzerland, or Russia, to name just two), there are other laws that prohibit using images of bank notes to print your own money. The thing with insignia is similar.
Image:Michiganstateseal.jpg is clearly not a "facsimile"; it looks more like an independently drawn graphical representation. It is, because heraldry allows variations in specific renderings, a valid representation of the seal, but it is not the seal. But in any case, the image tagging should be improved; I suppose the U.S. embassy has only one version of that Michigan seal. One of the two images is mis-tagged; probably Image:Michigan_state_seal.png. If so, and if that one is indeed the michigan.gov variation, it would not be PD-USGov but might be copyrighted by the state of Michigan. Lupo10:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes certain "uses" of images may be regulated such as {{personality rights}} -- but that regulation is really unrelated to whether the image is in the public domain. As to the question of whether the image is a facsimile or not, that seems to be splitting hairs. I expect that in a case where a use of the "official" seal image were illegal under Michigan law, the use of the supposedly public domain image from the embassy website in the same context would also be illegal. The embassy image satisfies the description of the seal under state law and the supposed copyright status is irrelevant.
But really, once again, my primary objection to this template is the current phrasing, which seems to imply that the seals of state governments are works of the federal government -- that is just wrong. My initial, admittedly clumsy attempts to revise the template were reverted and I was directed to nominate it for deletion, which led to here. I'd be happy with revising the template to remove the incorrect and very misleading implication that emblems of state governments are works of the U.S. federal government. This template should be clarified to state that these images are independent creations approximating the official state seals, and that it is these independent creations that are the work of an employee of the federal government. (Oh, and also the images to which this template is applied need to be verified that they came from the embassy website and not from state websites or other sources). Bkonrad15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although recreated in SVG by Strangnet this image is too similar to the official CoA [17] to be an original interpretation of the blasoning and is therfor a derivative of a copyrighted work. Lokal_Profil10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the request and will be looking in to making a more unique CoA that doesn't so closely resemble the original. --Strangnet15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although recreated in SVG by Strangnet this image is too similar to the official CoA [18] to be an original interpretation of the blasoning and is therfor a derivative of a copyrighted work. Lokal_Profil10:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although recreated in SVG by Jsdo1980 this image is too similar to the official CoA [19] to be an original interpretation of the blasoning and is therfor a derivative of a copyrighted work. Lokal_Profil11:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jsdo1980 has now created Image:Coat of arms of Helsingborg, Sweden.png instead which is only based on the seal and free from references to the unfree official Coat of arms. Therefor this image can now be deleted. /13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the uploader and agree with the deletion - clearly it shouldn't have been released under CC-BY-SA 1.0 by the creator. --Padraic14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the uploader and agree with the deletion - clearly it shouldn't have been released under CC-BY-SA 1.0 by the creator. --Padraic14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly stylized and deliberately non-realistic. Would prefer more specific justification than just a simple statement "derivative work". AnonMoos16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio Big or small, stylised or not, it's a spaceship from Star Trek. The original is copyrighted and makes somebody a lot of money via merchandising. So this is derived from an copyrighted unfree source. The size and quality of the image may be relevant in justifying it as Fair Use, but we don't allow fair use here. --Simonxag22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because L. Ron Hubbard, being real and so not made up by anyone, is not copyrightable. Characters and things from Star Trek are made up and the person or company that made them up have copyright over them. --Simonxag02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep The commons might have a lot of penis images, but the fact of the matter is that every image on the Wikipedia "penis" article shows something different. This image shows an circumcised penis in both flaccid and erect states. There is another image on this page that shows an uncircumsized penis in both flaccid and erect states. On most articles a small difference like this would be unimportant. (ie: showing both smooth peanut butter and chunky peanut butter on the "peanut butter" article.) However, because a penis is something private and most people can't walk into their local grocery store to see, I vote we keep this image. It is educational because it is something that is not easily observed, and many people (especially women) do not know the visual difference between an circumsized and uncircumsized penis. Also, the penis is that of an African American, making it more unique, as 90%+ of the images are of Caucasians. --lightintheattic 06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Abusing multiple accounts --Herbytalk thyme08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there are a lot of penis pictures here, but this is the highest res, best-quality picture of it's kind. I understand wanting to cut down on penis photos, but why this one? There are many other better candidates. --Violatrium06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have indefinitely blocked this user's account and those of the puppet accounts and deleted a further identical copy of this picture uploaded by one of them. Personally I'm inclined to strike this vote as well but I'll leave that to others. I suggest vigilance in this matter and the page is now on my watchlist. I'll consider my vote but it is likely to be a "delete" one if only because of the way the user is treating Commons, thanks --Herbytalk thyme08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep True, there are enough penis pictures on the Commons, but this is one of the highest res. ones, I do know that we may have a bit too many penis pictures, but this one is far better than others. -- Connor99 - what a surprise - non existent user! --Herbytalk thyme08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't want to see any more cock pictures, then don't look up articles or pictures on penises, cocks, wangs, dicks, etc. etc. This picture clearly illustrates the article and the two natural states of the male genitalia. Half the world's population has one, should we get rid of everyone else's too? Mghabmw00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Commons is not private photo album. I agree that images of genitalia for different races, medical conditions (like sexually transmitted diseases) have educational value. But as we don't collect every possible photo of dressed people, so we don't need to colled naked ones. --EugeneZelenko16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that we have already have plenty of penis images, however the one criticism I have heard is that our images of this subject lack ethnic representation. I think having an african american example is a good thing and this images is one of the higher resolution penis images available. The category could do with being reduced in size but IMO this image should be kept. WjBscribe05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's may be little be more complicated... Herter gave this painting to "People of France" for a permanent exhibition in gare de l'Est. As far as I know the former east railway company in charge of the gare de l'Est in 1920s and now the SNCF don't owned this painting but are just depository. I think as considered property of the french state, without opposite order, paintings are freedom of panorama. But I don't know if the 70 years after death rule applied if the painter have given his painting. Do he or his heirs still have rights on the given work (except moral rights that french law keep give to the author) ? TCY20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Giving the painting is not the same as giving the copyright to the painting. The same goes for selling the painting. You may own a thing but the copyright stays with the author (unless they also choose to transfer that, which they generally don't). Freedom of panorama would apply if this was a picture of something else in which the picture happened to appear, but this is a photo of the painting. --Simonxag22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A screenshot of copyrighted computer software. The copyright for its contents is most likely held by the author(s) or the company that created the software. -- RedCoat16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think that this image should be deleted because it is wrongly named but I however am not enthusiastic to determine a better name for it and re-upload it. --carol02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one page that it was being used on w:User:Rudeboy87 was part of my inspiration to request that it be deleted from here, as it seems to be the trend on that users page. If Rudeboy87 returns, it might actually be nice for him/her to see that the wiki is maturing with him or her. -- carol01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original uploader, and am new here. Is there a policy on this sort of thing? Do we not assume good faith on the part of the Flickr user in ambiguous cases? Astrojunta04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing wrong in assuming good faith (until evidence says otherwise) and we always do this with other Wiki editors. Good faith is not the same thing as having a clue about copyright. I have personally found, uploading stuff from Flickr, that you need to be careful and even then you can get caught out. --Simonxag20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted per author request - not in use, doesn't appear to be problematic to delete this, feel free to restore/request restoration if necessary ~ Riana ⁂17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belief that the uploader is actually the author of the image. Especially looking at his history of "no source" images. ALE! ¿…?08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image contains obscene pornography with naked breasts featuring big red nipples, especially on left breast. Piast19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The given reason for deletion is not valid, but the image is tiny with so little detail that it hardly seems useful. Also, if it's truly user generated I don't see how it can illustrate a playing card, not unless it's really a copyvio. --Simonxag20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quite correct. But in the future simply tag as no source listed with {{subst:nsd}} on the image page and notify the user per the template which will appear on the image page after you add this. If the problem is not corrected, the image will automatically be cued for deletion without need of discussion here. Cheers, -- Infrogmation
the image is blurred and the filmed person has no content - or does he? - because there is not a discription of him and you cannot see his face. — Manecke16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this image; People need to know how ugly this "architect's" work is! (Hey, MIT is on my side now!)
Delete Freedom of panorama is only applicable in Germany if the sculpture / building can be photographed from a "public site" (street, square). This photo was taken inside a building and therefore is not covered by FOP. --ALE! ¿…?10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This request is not very clear on what violation of policy has occured (at least, not to me). If 81.36.109.36 is suggesting this is a copyright violation I would probably suggest that it would be hard to claim copyright for what is basically a squiggly line on top of a straight line... ~ Riana ⁂11:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a derivative work of a painting by Otto Fritzsche or Fritsche (1872 - 1948), who died less then 70 years ago. The book that this was taken from was published 1902. Svens Welt17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Full fledged deletion request unnecessary. Marked with {{nld}}, if user does not give license within 7 days the file will be speedily deleted. ~ Riana ⁂04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Full fledged deletion request unnecessary. Marked with {{nld}}, if user does not show permission within 7 days the file will be speedily deleted. ~ Riana ⁂04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Full fledged deletion request unnecessary. Marked with {{npd}}, if user does not show permission within 7 days the file will be speedily deleted. ~ Riana ⁂04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted - 9 November 2007 User:Zirland (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an official photo, only signed and given to the uploader. The uploader does not have the rights to this photo.
Aparece ser una foto oficial, solamente firmado y dado a Puertomenesteo. El no tiene los derechos para esta foto. --Patstuart20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Esta foto fué comprada por mi en su día y de hecho la tengo firmada por Jose Luis Galloso, de quien soy amigo personal.
Comment Page says date of work is 1920, confirmed by Eastman site. If this is a US work from 1920, this photo is PD-US due to copyright expiration regardless of photographer's death date or any claim of copyright by the website. Do we have information on if this work was produced in the USA and published? -- Infrogmation01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per their respective Wikipedia articles, photographer Muray and subject Adler were both in the USA in 1920, so I presume the photo was taken in the USA. I am therefore retagging it as "PD-US" and closing this as a keep. If there is reason to think that this is incorrect, please relist. -- Infrogmation15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the uploader. If you believe it is a copyvio, all the power to you, delete it!. I just saw the uploader put it under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licenc, so I just went by that. -- Reaper X22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flickr license is almost certainly incorrect - it's very unlikely that some guy could get a photo like that, and even more unlikely that (s)he would put it online for free. Giggy\Talk09:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some confirmation that Flickr user is actual photographer. A quick look at user's other photos from around this time show no comparable work. -- Infrogmation00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image claims to be the emblem of the 7550th Operations Group, US Air Force, but is clearly that of the 7575th Operations Group. The same image is also uploaded as 7575th Operations Group.png. Mukk 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. CBS promo image; found on a .gov website simply because it was included in a temporary exhibit at the Herbert Hoover Library. --Davepape01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remover until proof is given that the user has permission (I doubt it). Aang is a copyrighted carachter. Any drawing of him is a derivative work, which are forbidden here at the Commons. --Boricuæddie02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the user has permission for the deviantart image (I know it because I was helping him to get the authorization), but when I see the image and realized that is derivative work, I request for deletion. If this is derivative work, the permission from the deviantart author is irrelevant. --Kved18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm, you don't need a full-fledged deletion request for this - {{image source}} is enough. DRs are usually for finer policy points. If he supplies the requisite info all is well and good, if not the file is speedily deleted after 7 days. ~ Riana ⁂14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publicity photo of US silent film star who retired from acting in 1916 [22]. He certainly does not look 20 years older here than this image of him known to date from 1903. He looks about the same age or slightly younger than in this image said to date from c. 1910. I therefore see no reason to cast doubt on the claim of original uploader on en:Wikipedia that the image is PD-US as predating 1923. -- Infrogmation03:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This media has no description, no source specified, no permission and no licence information. The Uploader was informed. — Manecke23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The uploader has uploaded new versions with information in the comment box that somehow did not end up in the template: Information |Description=Wizerunek herbu przedstawia w polu błękitnym sokoła złotego /żółtego/ ze srebnym /białym/ dziobem, obrożą, szponami i dzw |Source=Herb Sokołowa Małopolsk. I don't know if this is enough as my Polish is quite poor. Deadstar (msg) 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, you must have seen this image, on this Calder-page many times before. Still not satisfied, now this image has to go under the Commons-rules. I know on Commons there is no place fore Fair Use images. That is only for Users like yourselves on en-wikipedia. Well Jeremy if the image has to go, it must go. I am deeply sorry.--Gerardus08:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used as illustration for a (fake) news article at the German wikinews. German wikinews doesn't allow file uploads, so even if it isn't stricly encyclopedic (wikinews:de:Wikinews:Ententeich) is a joke page), I think there is no reason not to keep it. --rimshottalk13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All tagged PD-US, which is incorrect for Commons, since they're not US works. According to [23], I believe Gandhi's writings are copyrighted either 60 years PMA, or 60 years post-publication (for posthumously published items); 60 years PMA would expire 1 Jan 2009. Furthermore, these files all contain prefaces, footnotes, and endnotes that are separately copyrighted by the Navajivan Trust. --Davepape16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However the law is quite clear. All works published before 1923 are public domain in US, not only US works. And actually the first three texts (volume 2, 3 & 8) were first published in South Africa, where the law is 50 years pma, not in India. Would {{PD-South-Africa}} be OK? I deleted volume 9: it was the wrong volume (30 instead of 9). Yann16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, things that he wrote in South Africa are probably PD-South-Africa (and PD-US), but I don't think that's true for all of these writings. e.g. the Green Pamphlet (first thing in Vol. II) is about South Africa, but was written and published in India, according to the prefatory notes. And I'll reiterate that the additional materials are not by Gandhi, and appear to still be copyrighted, meaning the books as a whole shouldn't be on Commons. The parts that can be determined to be properly free ought to be extracted and uploaded by themselves - a worthy project, just (unfortunately) not as easy as uploading the book as a whole. --Davepape02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete US case law allows this, but the written US law and the US's international treaty obligations do not. So the Commons only allows PD-US on US published works. --Simonxag21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD photo of copyrighted, non-free book cover, uploaded in good faith without reading Commons:Derivative works. My bad, sorry. Please delete. --3 November 2007 User:Stephenw32768
Delete It looks like a designed book cover to me, not just a printed notice, so it's at least a work of artistic craftsmanship. --Simonxag21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment German law requires more originality than US law, so while this would certainly be OK for a German book, it might not be OK for an American one. --rimshottalk13:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about English law? This is the cover of the Anglicised edition, published in 1993 in the UK by Nelson Word Ltd. of Milton Keynes. --stephenw32768<user page><talk>15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image (if you squint hard enough to read it) is not the emblem of the 507th Air Refueling Group, but rather the emblem of the 507th Air Refueling Wing. Some background research at the Air Force Historical Research Agency webpage [24] confirms this. Mukk 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: If the image were high quality I would suggest simply moving it, but as it stands, the AFHRA has a much higher quality version of the image and, as a US government agency, is free of copyright. --Mukk22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Discussion on en seems noncommittal. I think the question should be: Is the Irish rugby flag this is based on public domain or not? (What do we know about it-- when was it created, is it owned by some entity?) If we have good reason to think the original flag is PD, keep. If not, delete. -- Infrogmation04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that this image is ridiculously disturbing, it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and is enough of a personal attack on the subject that we should not host it, as it probably should not be on any userpage anyway. Uploaded by user who's only contributions so far seem to have little to no encyclopedic purpose - only vilify Israel (and bin laden, perhaps?) --Patstuart05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
w:Carlos Latuff is a propagandist cartoonist. Images are uploaded to be linked with his article, and with articles about his style of work (i.e. maybe antisemitism, hate speech, smear campaign, and the like).
Also, a little while back, his more insulting work that has been linked to his article on english wikipedia have been mysteriously removed from the web - in what could be considered an attempt to seem more balanced and less offensive. the images should be kept accessible in commons so that english wikipedia won't have recurring issues with disappearing images.
This seems pretty clearly to be a modified photograph of Ariel Sharon. Unless there's evidence that Latuff took the original photo, or that the original photo is PD, it's a copyvio derivative work. --Davepape18:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as derivative likely copyviol unless the source photo which has been photoshopped is identified and shown to be similarly free licenced. -- Infrogmation02:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this image has a clearly free license since it likely a derivative work. So it does not meet criteria for inclusion and needs to be deleted unless clear evidence can be obtained that the image is eligible for a free license. FloNight♥♥♥21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two images have a lot of different detail (different number of stars, different lions, castle etc) although both no doubt representing the same coat of arms. No need to delete the 'original' version unless there is some licensing issue. No evidence of which is 'correct' (if either), we normally keep revisions of images anyway. --Tony Wills03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted'- 17 November 2007 User:Dodo (copyvio - scanned coat)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Comment US published material from this era has become PD-US unless specific registration and renewals were filed. The Library of Congress is the repository of record for such renewals. LOC site specificially says about this image "No known restrictions on publication." -- Infrogmation00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Document does seem to crash on me after page 1, also not sure if the content is within scope. It looks like a newsletter of some type. Deadstar (msg) 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
typo in Lemma. Correct picture under Image:Bridge of Boats across the Adour.jpg --Olivhill 12:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC) --Olivhill 12:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment That is not a valid reason for deletion. However note that the image has no copyright information, so it will be deleted in any case if that is not corrected. -- Infrogmation23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator (for deletion) is the uploader too, so you can expect permision will not be forthcoming. Might as well speedy delete. --Tony Wills01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me--if you'd prefer it be under a better name, you can upload the new version and request deletion of this one using the {{Badname}} template. Is there anything about this picture in particular that you don't like? It certainly seems like most of the obvious issues (tilting and barbed-wire fence) could be fixed or at least minimized with a little bit of digital editing. --jonny-mt02:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relisting the image - the original deletion request was incomplete. No reason to believe this image is in public domain, especially since all other uploads by the user on the English Wikipedia were copyright violations and the user is banned for vandalism and copyvios. --Ytoyoda12:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether the statemen "The photo is credited to World News but there is no copyright listed. We can assume that it is free use and may be used for commercial purposes." is enough for PD status. ALE! ¿…?15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Library of Congress made such a statement, I'd accept it. In this case when a user says it about an image copied from a webpage with a clear copyright symbol on it, I do not. -- Infrogmation00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a couple of search of Library of Congress's Prints & Photographs Online Catalog but can not find this particular image. It's a shame that we need to delete it because it may very well be free as a part of the U.S. News & World Report magazine photograph collection (Library of Congress) or as an image created by the U.S. Government at a Committee hearing. Unfortunately, without proof of either, I think we need to delete since the ownership/copyrightholder of the image is unknown. FloNight♥♥♥23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr file quite possibly a copyvio. Source states that author is Steve Granitz/WireImage.com and "license this image... contact WireImage". Given user's profile, his name appears to Josete Cabezuelo from Spain, not Steve Granitz from wireimage. Patstuart05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a violation. Mr. Granitz is one of the top celebrity photographers in North America, he would not let someone random upload his image under a free license, without an OTRS documentation. -- Zanimum17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone provide a translation of the description (does it suggest a use for this picture, maybe as an example of the breed of dog?). Also if it is to be deleted, it would be nice if someone could place a message on the users page explaining the reason in their apparent language as it appears to be their first contribution and we need to encourage contribution, not knock people back on their first attempt :-) --Tony Wills02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The language is Hebrew, and I think it is about taming/domestication, its probably an image intended to show dog training. KTo28800:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A translation of the hebrew sentence is: "The Trainer Michal Golan in an inital training of (the dog) Bono".
no tiene las licencias adecuadas Roquemontoya02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hasta que aprenda el tema de las licencias, con respecto a la legislacion de mi pais, solocito a algun bibliotecario que elimine todas las imagenes que agrege en el dia de hoy, ya que no encuentro la forma de hacerlo yo mismo. disculpen las molestias, gracias[reply]
Initial response was that the image was taken on set, but if you look through some of the author's other Flickr uploads, some of them are a bit suss...bringing it here to see what other people have to say on the matter. Giggy\Talk09:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think the editor has done anything wrong, but looking at the flickr author's other work, I wonder how they got on set at this movie. --Simonxag19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flickr user seems to have a collection of images yoinked from places on the web with the same (dubious) license. Note an adjacent image upload is a clear derivative of an Apple computer ad with added satire text with the description "saw this on the web, hilarous!" and the same licence as this image. Thus there is substantial reason to think the Flickr user is not the actual photographer/copyright holder of this image. -- Infrogmation03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP number 85.75.28.231 has twice added the "Logo" template to this image, causing it to be up for immediate deletion. He does not give an additional reason. I do not know if the deletion request is valid. Deadstar (msg) 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Logos are not exempted from copyright in Greece. I've talked with the original uploader and he agrees that greek municipalities logos should be deleted. GerakiTLG22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is going on here. A209 AMG was put up for deletion after first redirecting to W209 AMG. Then A209 AMG also put up for deletion, saying it is empty, (01:57, 9 November 2007 User:MB-one) but actually contains 5 images. I have no idea about any of this, perhaps MB-one can clear this up? Thanks. Deadstar (msg) 14:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously from all the goings I'd say they are good candidates for redirection (as is recommended) to stop any further confusion. Deadstar (msg) 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A209 AMG was empty at the time, I nominated it for deletion. It hasn't to be deleted now. A type W209 AMG does't exist, and the category is useless. It should be deleted--MB-one21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See deletion rational on wikipedia. The captions suggest the image has some relation to efficient and inefficient electronic transistor amplification - which is technically patently rubbish (IMHO ;-). It adds nothing to commons, and the essential image content is still available at Image:Bitmap_VS_SVG.svg. Finally the continuing presence of the image here means it shows up on wikipedia although deleted there! --Tony Wills00:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. I uploaded it because I had modified the original for a school project, and I thought I was required to upload any derivatives of the image. It has no use to me, and probably no use to anybody else. Siddharth Patil11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the explanation. No there is not a requirement to upload your derivatives, but if you do 'publish' them (eg by uploading them here or elsewhere), you do indeed need to license them in accordance with the original license. --Tony Wills11:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is in response to a complaint at COM:AN/U. User:Bruno Lamothe has already had many images deleted as obvious copyvios (see User_talk:Bruno_Lamothe#Violations_de_copyright), but he has several left which are equally obvious copyvios. Some are not obvious copyvios, but they are all listed above. I suppose it's entirely possible that this user works deep in the French government, and has been taking photos sitting right next to some of these people as they were in government sessions, but given the other copyvios, this user has shown he is not to be trusted with pd-self tags. Patstuart18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: according to his bio, he is deeply involved in French politics and might well have taken several of those photos. Nonetheless, there are blatant copyvios and each time he is asked about their copyright status, he fails to give any explanations.
Finally, he apparently misunderstands the notion of derivative work. When asked about Image:Thomas Dumerchez Le clan 2004.jpg authorship, he answers that since he has digitally modified the pictures, it's now his own work ("travail personnel").
Evidence please. The nominator says "Some are not obvious copyvios" so find some evidence, or leave them alone. Xavier says "In doubt, it's better to delete", I ask "better" in what respect?. It seems we are developing a culture of "innocent until accused". The aim of commons is to develop a media bank, ie collect images, not find any reason at all to exclude them. Treat every image on merit, and deal with the uploader appropriately if he persists on uploading proved copy violations. --Tony Wills01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For images where the uploader claims to be the copyright holder, the only evidence we have that the licensing is valid is the uploader's credibility, so we have to look at the images in the context of who uploaded them. When an uploader habitually makes demonstrably fraudulent claims of authorship, those claims obviously lose their credibility. We would not be acting in good faith if we trusted such claims blindly. Developing a media bank is also about protecting its legal integrity. —LX (talk,contribs)09:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's perfect ! "In doubt, it's better to delete all those images"... In doubt, I can imagine you would sentence to death many people...
Why not, after all.
All this images heve been taken in different conditions. Logo's, for exemple, of they many organisms and associations are not subjected to copyright. The Alabama Song book cover, is a scan image : you can see on the right of the image a darker zone. For many of the others, they're not subject to copyright because either I follow by it the author, or they are public.
Death penalty? Oh please, spare us this Godwinian rhetoric! You're not pleading in court, you are on Commons and, on Commons, you must bring the proof that we have the right to use, modify and restribute images of others, even commercially. Ask yourself this question: would you sell postcards or posters of those images without fearing to be sued by their original copyright owner? Public relation pictures may be "public", that does not automatically mean they are copyright free and that you can omit the actual author when reusing them.
Now, tell us: you invariably claim authorship of the pictures you uploaded on Commons but which photographs did you really take and which are originally the work of others ? Then, for each of the latter, please update the Source (URL for example) and Author (original author, followed by your name if you did some non-trivial work on it) fields accordingly. Next you'll have to bring us the proof that they are public domain. — Xavier, 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, i'm not pleading my case in a court... That's right. But, in France, it's the french rules which are applied, including in right of intellectual ownership, or of administration of proof. If you want delete some pictures, or all of my images, you can, that's under your responsability, that'll be your decision, but don't accuse me of things that you coul'nt prove. It's not a big deal. Bruno lamothe, 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you still aren't providing the information you are requested so that your images are kept on this site. It has already been proven that several of those images are the exact copy of pictures available on the Internet, so it's time for you to go beyond the "I'm innocent, you have no right to accuse me" argument. If you really are the author of those pictures, why fetch them on the Internet ? Just upload your own version in full resolution, and that will be fine. — Xavier, 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can delete all the pictures. And my user count. Thank U for everything. I don't want to fight for this type of things. — Bruno Lamothe, 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader refuses to list which pictures are his and which have been picked up on the Internet and erroneously self-attributed to him. He admitted on his talk page that at least two photos can't be used as freely as he claimed. All his pictures should be deleted according to his wish. Note: I'm deleting obvious copyvios right now. — Xavier, 18:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again usable on a webpage (if only we knew what it is of ;-), assume good faith we don't have a 'deletion on suspicion' rule --Tony Wills02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Apparently deleted [29] by User:Bryan, I do not know why. The image size is adequate for a webpage ... if only I knew what it was of ;-). The fact it contains EXIF info still, suggests it probably is 'own work', but the user does need to add more info --Tony Wills02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a concert room scene on which stands a piano and two chairs for string players. IMO, Bryan deleted it because it was not in the Image namespace. — Xavier, 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status is uncertain: the composer died more than 70 years ago but the performer might be the uploader or it could be a public domain MIDI file played by a electronic musical instrument.
Bossa Nova Baby (talk • contribs) is known to have uploaded copyrighted music (Britney Spears) in the past. (S)he seems to believe that any music available for free download is copyright free. (S)he is claiming a wrong license (CC-by-SA and EFF OAL) and doesn't give a precise URL for the source. Claimed source ("the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora Music repository at ibiblio.org") seems wrong and copy-pasted from other valid contents.
Delete I happen to know that the Platters sides are still under copyright. You are quite correct to observe that while such pieces as the Grieg may be public domain, the recordings of the perfomances can be a different matter. I don't see much use in spending lots of time trying to sort through a few possibly free items in a large pile of copyright violations-- unless the uploader starts to demonstrate some understanding of copyright and makes effort to sort and properly source their uploads themself, delete the lot of them. -- Infrogmation23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret that as "Delete because I can not be bothered proving that it is a copy-violation". Why don't we just give up on the whole project on the basis that it is too much work and we can never be sure anything is really free licensed? The imperative on commons should be to assume good faith in all cases - this does not mean assume good faith until suspicious. Treat every item on merit, delete obvious copy violations, and if in doubt look for evidence. Demonstrate that we do not accept copy-violations, and protect peoples rights to the best of our abilities. It is not reasonable to assume copy-violation on suspicion and the size of the project is not sufficient reason to cut corners. --Tony Wills02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree items should be treated on merit, and assumption of good faith should be the starting possition. However I think that users who have repeatedly uploaded copyright violations have forfeited that assumption of good faith (unless they show some indication that they realize they have made a mistake). If you wish to research and find the actual source, artist, and copyright status of any or all these uploads, and show which ones if any are free licenced, you are not only welcome to do so, you will win my admiration for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Most of the files where corupt anyway (Couldn't read file: Incorrect magic number.), so even with source not useable. For the rest (actually just one file was left after deleting the corrupt ones): Good faith is a nice and great concept, but it does and should not work anymore as soon as a user prooves that he she does not want or can't understand the rules and act within them. A untrustworthy user is not somebody who should be treated with good faith, because he/she just violates that faith. Cecil13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this picture in the Czech translation of book Süßwasserfishe by Claus Militz from 1997. There is written, that author of this picture is Fritz Wendler (born 1941). Reaperman13:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to Bankotravel to prove that he is a rights holder of this picture. If sysops want, I can send the scan of it in the book by e-mail. --Reaperman22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless at least commented by its presumed author, Bankotravel, who, until now, only reuploaded the picture, changed the license from GFDL to PD-user, and repeatedly removed the deletion tag without an explanation. If he won’t comment in a matter of days, I am going to resolve this request and delete the image. --Mormegil20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally tagged {{GFDL-self}}, which obviously isn't correct, and was nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. However, I don't agree that there is a need for speedy deletion, since I don't think the EuroNews logotype is original enough to be copyrightable, so I'm changing it into a regular deletion discussion. I have removed the {{GFDL-self}} tag and replaced it with {{PD-textlogo}}. —LX (talk, contribs)21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Logo shows nothing but the name of the station, arranged in a way that the limits for inclusion in copyright as a work of arts (German law: "Schöpfungshöhe") are not met. As such, it is ineligible for copyright. It is used as a trademark, however, so the (R) is justified and appropriate usage is required. --Gwyndon01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that the "9" is not "plain text in a standard font", but I'd agree this is not a clear cut case so comments from others would be welcome. /Lokal_Profil01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You might as well take my word for it, I vouch for the correct labeling as "inelligible for copyright" because under German copyright laws "Sweat of the brow" is missing, "Schöpfungshöhe" is not reached. (My media law exam is fairly recent) Compare: Schöpfungshöhe. --Gwyndon03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Then why are Germans opposed to licensing tags for "simple" works from other countries and always arguing in Germany the rules for originality are very low? -Nard21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but it does talk about "original authorship" and almost anything involving some complexity will also require "original authorship" to be visualised. For this specific case it's obvious that there is an artistic choice for how to represent the rope, crown etc. /Lokal_Profil02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, almost anything requires original authorship, yet we also have plenty of (complex) media in the public domain - logic suggests they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I could list you countless images that are absolutely both public domain and of artistic original authorship. You've yet to present a good reason for the deletion of this image. ¦ Reisio00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really should look up the difference between the public domain tags. Yes public domain means the same thing in all cases but WHY they are in the public domain DIFFERS. Images can go inte the public domain because the copyright expires (PD-old) or because the author releases it to the public domain (PD-self, PD-user, PD-author) or because it contains no originality (PD-ineligible) or for a series of other reasons. This specific image is said to be in the public domain because it lacks originality, which is wrong and therefore it is subject to a deletion debate. /Lokal_Profil01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying the creator/uploader should have used PD-self/-user/-author instead of PD-ineligible, it is not subject to a deletion debate, it's subject to a question on the Image's talk page. ¦ Reisio18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep"If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication."[30] First = 1873 --Fg68atde:Disk23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This button is own work of Raabe Socke as he statet in the copyright statement. Because Local_Prodile is not able to read
the Information Box I will add a PD-Self to the picture. I've asked Rabe Socke a member of the german WS-community and he statet me that he has done this work on his own and he agreed that I can set the PD-Self for him.
Information
|Description=custom toolbar button for zoom in images
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This button is own work of Raabe Socke as he statet in the copyright statement. Because Local_Prodile is not able to read
the Information Box I will add a PD-Self to the picture. I've asked Rabe Socke a member of the german WS-community and he statet me that he has done this work on his own and he agreed that I can set the PD-Self for him.
Information
|Description=custom toolbar button for zoom in images
Dummerweise ist das Bild so beschnitten, das nicht erkennbar ist das es die Aufnahme einer Tafel im öffentlichen Raum darstellt.... --GeorgHH • talk10:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ergibt sich aber daraus, daß da wo der "Standort-Punkt" ist, kein Gebäude steht. Und solange das geschützte Werk (die Karte auf der Tafel) nicht verändert wird, was nicht passiert ist (die komplette Karte ist auf dem Bild), greift meines Erachtens die Panoramafreiheit, aber ich lasse mich da gerne eines Besseren belehren. --Mogelzahn16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ... wer hat das Bild eigentlich nach Commons geladen? ;-)[reply]
Ach noch was, die Karte ist als PD-ineligible getagt. Wenn man dem folgt, dann käme es auf die Panoramafreiheit ohnehin nicht an (ich zweifle allerdings, ob da wirklich keine Schöpfungshöhe gegeben ist). --Mogelzahn16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've uploaded this image. Don't know why, but I changed the license here to PD-ineligible minutes after uploading. Original license was PD-user, so I changed it back now. Also, I added {{PD-FOP-DE}}. Summary: Image shows a plan which is permanently installed in a public place in Hamburg, Germany, so Commons:Freedom of panorama fits. --GeorgHH • talk22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The flickr-image is a copyright violation from the museums website which does not state that it wants to offer its content in the way the flickr user claimed. Cecil07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep As per the 9Live logo above (which I transferred here), the same applies in this case (where I'm not linked to the image): You might as well take my word for it, I vouch for the correct labeling as "inelligible for copyright" because under German copyright laws "Sweat of the brow" is missing, "Schöpfungshöhe" is not reached. (My media law exam is fairly recent) Compare: Schöpfungshöhe. --Gwyndon04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in order for the image to be on Commons it needs to be ineligable under (at least) US copyright as well. And US copyright does not take "Sweat of the brow" into account. /Lokal_Profil14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Per nom. @Gwyndon: So etwas, wenn es denn sein muss, auf de.WP lokal hochladen. Dort werden Logos, die die Schöpfungshöhe nicht erreichen, akzeptiert. Cecil07:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is {{PD-US-not renewed}} in the U.S. However, "J. Russell & Sons" was a British studio.[31] (Apparently the started business in Chichester, but later moved to London.) Their chief photographer at the time this image was taken was Walter Stoneman.[32] The UK National Portrait Gallery has a similar photo [33]. Maybe our image was taken at the same session (observe the papers on the table, and the bright thing in the background left). If so, the photographer was Cecil Beaton (1904 - 1980). I don't believe this image is PD in general. This British work should be moved back to the English Wikipedia, but it should not reside here with this U.S.-only PD-claim, and it should not be used in so many Wikipedias under this U.S.-only claim. Lupo13:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right; good work researching. Without any indication of being copyright expired or otherwise free in country of origin, this should be assumed to be copyright expired for USA only (hm, perhaps we should have something like a PD-US-only tag some day?), ok for en:Wikipedia but not Commons. -- Infrogmation14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having such a tag on en-WP would be good. There's already en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad... here at the Commons, we don't need such a tag; just making sure the PD-US tags are applied only to U.S. works should be good enough. Lupo21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the obvious simple reason that it "contains original authorship". Or are you saying that there is only one unique way of drawing a mountain, a bird and a fish. How about a motivation for why it should be PD-ineligible./Lokal_Profil02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original authorship and {{PD-ineligible}} are not incompatible. I'll give you two reasons against your zero why it should be PD-ineligible: (1) it is, that's how it's marked - deal with it or prove otherwise (2) many flags and coats of arms are in the public domain (I would actually guess the [vast] majority). ¦ Reisio00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the statements "this image contains original authorship" and "this image ... contains no original authorship" not mutually incompatible? —LX (talk, contribs)17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With only "deleted" as a deletion comment it's of course hard to say but most likely if the original has been deleted it is because it had licensing problems (i.e. it was copyrighted and unfree). Therefore since this is a derived work of that image it would by extention also be copyrighted and unfree. I'll drop the deleting admin a message and ask why the original was deleted. /Lokal_Profil13:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, they seem to have gotten it of someone else (Banco de Mexico), doesn't make it any more PD though. To clarify it: It doesn't say anywhere that the image is public domain hence to quote our upload guidelines "and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here". /Lokal_Profil02:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - you weren't interested in checking the facts before you listed the image here... why start checking now? :p ¦ Reisio00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the source given by the uploader was FOTW and (as you put it) "assuming good faith" I assumed that that was indeed the original source of the image. Anyhow any of this is now irrelevant for this deletion debate. If you want to argue for the image being keept then please find the relevant information from Banco de Mexico saying that they are the copyrightholders and that they release the image to the Public Domain. /Lokal_Profil01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call assuming someone uploaded a copyrighted image without permission "assuming good faith" - don't be ridiculous, it's the polar opposite. I have sent Banco de México an email requesting information on the image. ¦ Reisio19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that I assumed that the uploader had checked that FOTW was the original source when he quoted that as his source, thats the extent of the assuming good faith. The part about there not being a permission is a fact since ther is in fact no link to a permission on the image page. /Lokal_Profil20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it might. Once again study the different PD-templates. For instance PD-author is the author of the image having released the image to the public domain, i.e. here on commons we would have a link to a "permission" where the copyright owner releases the rights of the image. /Lokal_Profil00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although neither source nor author are provided, I believe these uploads have been done in good faith by their author. Nonetheless, there is a strong discrepancy between flickr licenses and the ones here. Uploader must prove his identity or change the license on flickr and/or here so, that they match and are compatible with Commons. — Xavier, 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* *
Ok, I change the flickr licenses, what's now?
Thank you for changing the license but a problem remains: non-commercial licenses (like the CC-by-NC-SA you chose) are not permitted on Commons. CC-by-SA would be OK. Then you would have to change the license of Image:Explanada.jpg to CC-by-SA too. If you don't agree with commercial use of your pictures, you can explicitely ask here for their deletion.
Finally, please, update the author and source fields of the three images, following my instructions on your talk page.
Deleted. The flickr-licence is still not compatible. In case the owner of the flickr-account is the same as the uploader he should conntact the COM:OTRS-team for proof. - Cecil07:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Comment I think that further research needs to be done. According to this website, the image is taken from the December 1980 issue of National Geographic Magazine. This image is widely scattered across the internet. Also, can a drawing of an ancient piece of art be copywrighted? Evrik03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is useful for evaluating the characters on the Calendar. It is useful. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by65.14.92.98 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 March 2008
Keep Keep We need all material we can get, to develop ideas of ancient culture. Start investigate instead.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by81.170.158.244 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 March 2008
Keep I also find this image is very useful for evaluating the characters on the Calendar. And we need all the material we can get!—the preceding unsigned comment was added by62.117.152.79 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 April 2008
I can't do that because I don't know the exact source url of the image. I have, however, uploaded a very similar image named Mount St. Helens 05-18-1980.jpg WolfmanSF00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the source says it's "copyright-free artwork," as it's clearly a derivative work from a character in a still-under-copyright film. RG205:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not yet fully sure on how to write this registration down, i'm just learning the commons mini-rules, and i've noticed that cc-by-sa, sounds like the proper license tag... i'll continue reading, and hope to sort this issue out in a bit. Jaakobou07:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But is license at the Flickr source legitimate? This looks like a professional promotional photo of an actor, with a different look from the self-taken photos near-by in the Flickr user's uploads. This at least warrents a bit of checking IMO. -- Infrogmation16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone can find the true source of the image, we can use {{copyvio}}. But right now we have no proof that this image was not taken by the flickr uploader, and there is nothing we can do here. I stand by my keep. --Boricuæddie17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can clearly notice it`s a copyvio, even without the name of the original photographer. IF it was a picture from irina slutsky you would get a big story on the copyright in de description field. This field is now filled with fan-like-stuff like "but he's hot". Would you think that a professional photographer would say something like this about a client? Can you think about Herb Ritz saying about Britney Spears "she is hot!"? CrazyPhunk20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it can be deleted; a source has been found. Action on Flickr will also been taken. Uploading copyrighted photos and releasing it under a free license is against its guidelines. Remover. --Boricuæddie21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IWM frequently only lists the photographer as 'Royal Navy Official Photographer', or sometimes simply 'unknown' on quite a few of its archived photographs. Records from that era are sometimes incomplete or have been lost. But as the IWM policy states - "The images featured on this site are subject to Crown Copyright protection unless otherwise indicated...Where Crown Copyright does not exist, this will always be stated." and from the specific entries for these photographs - "Access: Unrestricted". The fact the specific photographer is currently not known does not remove the validity of the tag. --Benea00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The provenance of these photographs is an interesting question. Unfortunately the IWM does not go into specific detail about how it acquired these images, which is a shame. But unless it can be proved that the Imperial War Museum does not have the right to do what it has done, then we are working on the basis of assumptions and as you point out, you do not know the full story. The use of these images is in accordance with wikipedia policy, in that they have been released into the public domain and then uploaded. If all you can say is that you think the IWM museum has made a mistake in doing so then that needs to be pointed out to them, as as I have pointed out, these images ARE in the public domain, and your belief that they should not be is a subjective opinion from a position of not knowing the full provenance of these photographs. --Benea11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confiscated German war-time photos are PD in the UK as war booty. They are not PD in their country of origin, which in this case appears to be Germany. (The image page states the image was taken form another German ship, evidently by a German photographer/sailor.) In Germany, the image is PD only if the photographer died more than 70 years ago. The rules at the Commons require that a work claimed to be PD must be PD at least in the country of origin and in the U.S. Hence the status in the UK (and the IWM's statements) are besides the point. Lupo12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be even more complicated than that! See Commons talk:Licensing#Imperial War Museum Licensing for a clearer explanation. In short, the images are PD in the UK and the US, and are not under copyright in Germany (owing to the situation that existed there post war). Modern opinion would however place these works under the copyright of the current German government and I don't particularly have a problem with that. Given that a good case can be made for their use on en-wiki, I'm happy to upload them there and see them deleted on here, rather than continuing to argue over the legal technicalities. --Benea15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Carl's conjecture that such images would have been state owned is unsourced. Maybe, maybe not. The conjecture from that conjecture that such state-owned materials were PD today in Germany is completely unsupported. See en:WP:PD#German World War II images. It is sometimes a grey area, but in any case, blanket PD claims do not work for these photographs. As I understand it (and apparently I'm not alone with that understanding), most if not all such German works are copyrighted in Germany. (Unless the usual copyright with a 70-year term has expired anyway, of course.)
If you upload these images at en-WP, mark them with a statement that they should not be copied to the Commons. Thank you. Lupo16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing some of my assumptions on articles here and here; the main example is Triumph of the Will which was ruled by a German court to have owned by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and not Leni Reifenstahl (as she claimed), and therefore ownership passed to the German government. Transit, a company wholly owned by the German government, administers the rights to that film today (outside the US and UK of course). I would presume the situation would be the same with Nazi Party photographs. The NHC version of this photo states it came from officer reports on the Prinz Eugen, so that was almost certainly NSDAP material. I'm less sure about this point, but it may also be illegal to privately own Nazi material in Germany, which could complicate things more. In any event, I'm pretty sure copyright on this is still valid in Germany. In a few years, when we pass the 70 year point, EU-Anonymous may start clouding things more. Carl Lindberg18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, I know about these cases. But they're rather special cases, difficult to generalize from. And yes, in a few years EU-Anonymous claims will arrive... will be interesting to see how things work out then. Lupo21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although released by the IWM the term "German official photographer" is bogus (they do not know who the author is) thus the license is wrong Denniss23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IWM frequently only lists the photographer as 'Royal Navy Official Photographer', or sometimes simply 'unknown' on quite a few of its archived photographs. Records from that era are sometimes incomplete or have been lost. But as the IWM policy states - "The images featured on this site are subject to Crown Copyright protection unless otherwise indicated...Where Crown Copyright does not exist, this will always be stated." and from the specific entries for these photographs - "Access: Unrestricted". The fact the specific photographer is currently not known does not remove the validity of the tag. --Benea00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, they don't know the photographer and it's clearly not subject to Crown Copyright. Why then should we believe that the image is in the public domain? --91.65.124.3421:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
image quality ??? wtf ? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by217.228.127.13 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Leave it there. The idea is great and the drawing original.
And i agree to "image quality ??? wtf ?", even though i do not
favor unnecessary use of punctuation and or blank spaces. :D —the preceding unsigned comment was added by90.201.227.149 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quality could be better, but it's not so bad - perhaps an indexed colour format such as PNG might be more appropriate, if someone can replace it. Until then, this image should stay for the purposes of illustration. Of course, the copyright is a separate issue. 90.201.227.14923:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you've completely failed to address the problems for which the image was nominated for deletion. (As for the image quality, it is the same as in the original and is presumably intentional on behalf of its creators.) —LX (talk, contribs)21:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: It’s ok with me if you’re using the FSM images/content as long as it’s not for profit, and you’re doing it to further the Cause of the church. I.e. printing out FSM propaganda materials and distributing them is ok (and encouraged). Making FSM t-shirts, selling FSM merchandise, etc. is NOT OK.
Ok, I take back the deletion request. However, please note that the image may or may not be usable in nations like Germany, where not all rights of the author are transferable by a license (even if he wants to). The question about the rights there still remains. I'll add a note when I know about this. --Conspiration18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I (and several other wikipedians) use it in infobox on userpage and I don't want to use Image:BJT NPN symbol (case, unlabelled).svg because I think that Image:Transistor.symbol.npn.svg looks better (especially with used dimensions). And I don't want to move it to cs.wiki because I want to use it also on other language versions of Wikipedia where I have account.
I see no reason for replacing two years old image that is correct with the new one.
I don't think that's the case. But my though was to have uniformization for symbols between all the wiki pages. There are normalizations (IEEE/ANSI 315, EN/IEC 60617) for electrical symbols, and someone has done a very good job by trying to normalize SVG electrical schematics : Image:Electrical symbols library.svg. My thought was that it is a shame to use so much different images to present the same component. But it was only a test, I have done only two libraries (Categroy:BJT transistor symbols and Category:JFET transistor symbols). I wait for your comments. --Zedh21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't editors choose which ones they want to use in articles?
Several times I've seen my crappy PNGs be deleted, but only the BJTs, for instance. Replacing them with SVGs is good, but not when they are used in conjunction with FETs of a different style. Any such effort would need to create all the symbols, including all the different variants of MOSFETs, with and without labels, etc. (Unless the unlabeled ones are really not used anywhere). — Omegatron05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful, Zedh. I specifically created Image:BJT PNP symbol.svg so that it would be the same style as Image:IGFET N-Ch Dep Labelled.svg, so that they could be used together in articles and look the same, such as w:Transistor#Types. It even says so in the image description, but you overwrote it with your own version in a completely different style, so that it does not match the others in the tables. This is what I meant by #2 above. If you're going to replace some transistor symbols, you need to replace all transistor symbols, including all the different variations of MOSFETs and so on. Then everyone else needs to agree that your style is better than the others. :-) — Omegatron00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Raster versions was made using Russian/Soviet standart (GOST), but the new one is not. I don't see a big problem here, but is it expected to delete them right now? --Panther08:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean not the fonts, but the sign itself. New symbols looks too unnatural and unprofessional for me, an engineer. In Russia when any official work is being made, we should follow a GOST (rus: ГОСТ 2.730-73), the special state standart, a part of the ESKD set (ЕСКД, Unified System of Construction Documents). I found a copy here (DOC-ZIP 250k), pages 11 and 12, if it is interested for you. I not see a problem here, my images are not very good (and now I haven't got enough time to make new versions). I'm not against the deletion, but maybe is it possible to do it some later :)? --Panther14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My aim was not to criticise your models, but to try to uniformize all the symbols for all the wiki. It seems that it is not possible, so forget this request ;) --Zedh20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems i wasnt straightforward enough.. I am the copyright holder. Wikimedia Commons has no permission to keep this picture. Every second in which this picture remains here exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to civil prosecution. Delete this picture. There will be no arguments and no negotiations. א.שטיימן20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that as of this moment the commons is doing a copyright violation? This picture is not yours and you will delete it. The only question which needs answer is whether it will be by good will or by force. Do not try to force me to bring it in front of the foundation. It is pity that you are even arguing about this. It will cause you no good. People will refuse to give you their pictures. א.שטיימן21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL is non-revocable. The "Termination" section of the text of the GNU Free Documentation License says, "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." We have every right to not delete the image. No court of law can touch us. --Boricuæddie23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the image is replaceable, the uploader isn't being disruptive by nominating for deletion every image he/she uploaded, I don't see why we can't grace him/her with this request. --Iamunknown00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if we delete this one we'd be setting a precedent and we'd give people the (incorrect) idea that they can just upload and delete photos at their discretion. --Boricuæddie00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't maintain "precedent", because our policies are not necessarily equitable. Instead, we consider each situation individually and, naturally, some decisions will be similar, while some will not. --Iamunknown05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only are the GFDL and all other Commons licenses irrevocable, but the Commons explains its license and copyright issues like no other site. It has been 5 months: had the license been changed soon after it was applied, we would assume that the uploader was correcting a mistake or clarifying their intentions, but not now. Could the uploader please tell us why they want the image removed? We do try to be reasonable and we are open to argument. --Simonxag00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-( Could you be a little more sympathetic here? Not everyone is familiar with polite discourse (and sometimes unpolite discourse or legal threats is due to English-language skills). --Iamunknown05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the photo wouldn't be deleted, but rather anonymised and any information about you (including this discussion) would be removed. Is this an urgent situation such as a matter of personal protection? --Simonxag14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some heated argument over the deletion of a not very high quality picture of a not very crucial subject. Retaining good will of contributors to this project should be far more important than retaining images simply on a point of principle. It would perhaps be helpful if User:א.שטיימן explained why he wanted to change or delete the licence (I note he also attempted to change it to cc-by-sa-2.5, perhaps dual licensing with gfdl and cc-by-sa-2.5 would work for him). If there is some confidential reason I'm sure a conversation can be carried on via email. --Tony Wills02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would recommend to delete this image because it is of very poor quality and I assume that it can be replaced by a better picture. It is currently referenced in one article only among several other pictures. If we remove this picture, we do it just for this reason or out of courtesy. The original uploader should take a look at section 9 of the GFDL, titled Termination:
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Hence it is neither justified nor helpful to issue legal threats or stating wrongfully that we are violating his or her copyright.
Thank you, Gridge, for your replacement. I've just been bold and replaced the to be deleted image by your suggested image in the only one article referencing it. --AFBorchert
Bold? This is only the Hebrew wiki, not the Persian one ;) (kidding). A.shteiman was wrong when he made these threats. Despite his threats, and not because of them, my vote is Delete, same as FloNight below. Gridge17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete 1) This is not a high quality image and it is replaceable. 2) Commons is dependent on folks volunteering their work. Just as it is in our best interest to work with photographers in order to get clear permission to upload their work by assisting them to find the right license and such, it is also in our best interest to honor requests to remove content that they no longer feel is appropriate for Commons to host. I feel the long term net effect will be more images not less. Hopefully, someone has been in contact with him by email to gain a better understanding of the his situation and explain the the ins and outs of the images license. FloNight♥♥♥23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can not revoke a license. Besides, do we know whether this image is already used outside the wikipedia world? Our free images and their license terms should be reliable. Also outside our wiki universe. --ALE! ¿…?13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct that the license can not be revoked and can be used in the future based on the license...but...if the user no longer feels that Commons hosting the content is best I think we should work with them. From the users comments above, for reasons that are unclear but perhaps related to issues of "personal protection", he does not want to be associated with this image any longer. If this low quality, replaceable image is causing problems, I think we should honor the user's request to delete. The loss to the Project is minimal, and at minimum the act can promote goodwill, and perhaps also prevent serious problems for this user. FloNight♥♥♥15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this guideline which states that a file can be deleted if it has a low image quality/resolution (e.g. out of focus, too small). Hence, we can and should delete this image just because of its poor quality independent from the impossibility of revoking a GDFL license. --AFBorchert17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted contrary to my previous vote. This is not to say that legal threats like these are acceptable:
"The only question which needs answer is whether it will be by good will or by force."
"Every second in which this picture remains here exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to civil prosecution. Delete this picture. There will be no arguments and no negotiations."
"Do not try to force me to bring it in front of the foundation."
Sorry, but that's not how this place works (and the language barrier is no excuse here). If you had tried asking us nicely from the start, we would have listened to you and this would not have dragged on for months; indeed, I was quarter-tempted to close this with a Keep just to piss you off and force home the point that licenses are not revokable.
Consensus is what it is, though, and probably right in this case: The picture is crap, not useful, and not worth keeping around given the tasty-looking replacement[s] available. That is why it is being deleted, not because of the uploader's hilarious legal threats. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image doesn't seem simple enough to be ineligible for copyright and there is nothing supporting that a "1972 SAAB V4 manual" should be PD. Lokal_Profil00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relativley simple technical illustration. // Liftarn
Its NOT a screenshot. Max Kolonko is a tv journalist and television studio IS his working enviroment. The picture was taken in a private session with Max Kolonko to portray him in the studio enviroment. If he'd be a soccer player he'd be portrayed in the soccer field. The photo does NOT include anybody's station logos and therefore doesnt infringe on anybody's rights and is published by full consent of Media 2000 - photo owner and Max Kolonko. best —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Media2000 (talk • contribs) 02:00,
Comment Do you mean that he wasn't actually reporting news (but just acting) when that photo/screenshot/whatever was taken? --Moonian14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in this case, I'll say to Keep it then. However, I think it'd be better to add a note to the image description page, to tell people that this isn't really a screenshot taken from some live news programme. --Moonian09:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This IS a screenshot, as everybody can see: mind the parallel lines on the edge of his shirt and face - obvious sign of screenshot from dvd etc. A digital photo, "portray in a private session" ;-) as Edyta76 aka Media2000 writes, definitely would be a better quality. Edyta76 aka Media2000 had a troubles with copyright violations on Polish Wikipedia, so she can not be trusted in this matter. I suggest to delete this file immediately because no permission for usage was added here or to Polish Wikipedia. Arek197921:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, really? I withdraw my above vote for the time being then, until after Media2000 has provided further evidence, if any. --Moonian06:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I represent MEdia 2000 who owns the shot. Legal defeinition of a screenshot is a form that violates others rights such as logos, images etc. which this image lacks. We run almost all Max Kolonko websites ( such as official Max KOlonko site where we also use that image) and we always use tv cameras for internet work. We work in TV business not print. The format on which you provide your work to wikipedia is irrelevant. Again:wikipedia output is: web not print. We choose this shot as it portrays Mr Kolonko is his business enviroment not as a book seller. The other shot promoted by user arek1979 aka user Chepry is accidental and is not authorized by Mr. Kolonko whom we represent for use as his Wikipedia image.
BTW 1- THis "ivestigaive work" by user Arek1979 is pure nonsense and lacks common sense. Media 2000 is not "aka Edyta76". User Edyta dosnt have any copyright violations on Polish wikipedia. She asked for our permission to use our websites shot which was granted and she has our full support in her work which she stated couldnt do as she was ostracized by this "POlish Group" of wannabe celebrity photogrpahers who blocked her attemts to change the image and turned to us for help.
We run www.maxkolonko.com and promote his images with his full consent.
BTW2-It is because of poeple like user Arek1979 that other Polish journalists are portrayed on POlish wikipedia in disrespectful and accidental to their lifetime work circumstances ( vide journalist T.Lis represented on POlish wikipeida in a shot which makes him look like he advertises bottled water or journalist Kinga Rusin ( if that's her at all) presented strolling with Mr. Krasko another journalist)
To user Arek1979:PLease stop pushing your interests on Wikipedia as photographers who are trying to use celebrities to promote their name as bonafide" photographers". Advertise your work on your own wikipedia pages creating ones for yourself. This is already one of hte most edited names in Commons because of this group. Best regards - Yvete Williams MEdia 2000 Communications www.MaxKolonko.com
First of all, this Wikipedia not Kolonkopedia, so we don't need any "authorization" from mr MMK to use photo portratying him. If he is not satisfied or you think that this photo is not a good example of his majesty - you got a problem, because he apparently bents to look like this. Second, I can tech you some "ivestigaive work", then you wouldn't wrote so many funny things like "user arek1979 aka user Chepry". Third, it's very funny to have it written black on white, that mr Kolonko and his courtiers have strong complex of mr Tomasz Lis. Best regards, keep on falling in love with your idol and maybe my joke is going to be some advise to you: rule the Kolonkopedia. Arek197913:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Your remarks are emotional and have no lagal merits. The issue is copyright violations regarding the image which are discussed here which as we indicate are none. Furthermore it is advisable that images submitted to wikipedia represent the portrayed poeple in a professional fashion which previous photo lacks. Yvette Williams Media 2000 Communications www.maxkolonko.com
So many words written and still file is missing essential source informations. No OTRS was sent to Commons or Polish Wikipedia. How we can trust anonymous IP address? I sustain request for deletion. Arek197912:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Media2000 claims she owns the image and if no one can prove otherwise, it should be removed from the deletion list. Further - the Kolonko screenshot can be used under Fair Use, which permits copying of images for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.". Wikipedia certainly fits the description of teaching or scholarship. The deletion request should be voided. OTRS is irrelevant. Oh, and by the way, Arek, your bias is very apparent. Plus, don't insult other people's grammar when screwing up your own, as in "Second, I can _tech_ you some "ivestigaive work", - signed, Martin Kunert
Comment It's screenshot from [38], not a photo from private session. IMO copyright holder is CBS, and it would be more like fair use. Definitely this image is not in the public domain. Mathepl20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mathepl -- I dug into this issue deeper. Using a CBS set does not make the resulting video the property of CBS. Just like if you take a picture of yourself at Disneyland, Disney doesn't own your photo. As you noted, the still is from a video. That video clearly lacks any copyright or identification of ownership by CBS News, nor is it a CBS News broadcast. The video's only connection to CBS News is that their set is used. The only legal grounds that CBS would have is that their logo appears on screen. This would create a problem for narrative TV, docus, and movies. However for news broadcasts -- which Kolonko is doing -- it would not. Further, Kolonko is using their set by their permission as it is obvious he didn't steal the shot - hence, CBS must by default grant Kolonko and his Media200 permission to use their News logo in his broadcast since they rented him the set which includes the logo.
Also, if CBS owned the copyright on this video and clip, that would mean that they would own the copyright on Kolonko's reporting in Polish -- which unless they paid him and there was a transfer of title, is just not the case. Since the report was not for CBS News (I understood the Polish spoken there), CBS was not the owner, hence once again, CBS does not own the clip.
I could go on -- I've been dealing with these issues for years as a filmmaker (google me) but the bottom line is that CBS is not the copyright holder of this video nor the clip. That belongs to Kolonko's Media2000. So if Media2000 grants permission for the clip to appear in wikipedia, it's valid. -signed Martin Kunert
Comment Oh, and by the way, Martin Kunert, show me just one moment in this debate where I insult other people's grammar. It's rhetorical question certainly, because only one person here to do that is you. And google yourself meaning of bias, before using in public discussion. Best regards (spoken in Polish), Arek197909:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment How about when you wrote "I can tech you some "ivestigaive work"". As for googling "bias", here's wikipedia's entry: "A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective." Which is exactly how I used the word. Peace - Martin Kunert
Sourced to a U.S. state government website, whose works are not automatically in the public domain. Given the dates the man in the photo served, I wouldn't be sure about PD-US, either. RG205:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Library of Congress has a number of portraits of this man, several of which are marked as "No known restrictions on publication". There's no need to use this image of uncertain copyright status. Possible replacements include [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], or my personal favorite, [45] (see [46] for the rights info and [47] for a larger TIF file). Lupo09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no indication that either a) this government site is the author of this photo or b) that they are releasing it under GFDL anyway. Author has, unfortunately, uploaded other images improperly with GFDL license. Patstuart19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
only source is en which deleted as a copyvio "Uh, no it's not. It's a piece by Alex Grey from his book Transfigurations. I don't think it's in the public domain." Secretlondon19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted branding from the "Democratas" Party in Brazil, see [48]. It's not a logotype written on a generic typeface: it's rather a designed artwork --Gaf.arq01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-ineligible}} does not apply cause this artwork was subject to creative work. The geometric shapes are not "simple" nor "natural". As it is a copyrighted work from some graphic designer, it should be deleted.--Gaf.arq02:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask all of you to stop nit-picking on each other; whatever arguments you have on pt.wiki are not to be brought to this deletion debate; nor past deletion debates that have absolutely anything to do with the present situation. Please.
I think this is a hard, borderline case. If there was no background, it would certainly be {{PD-ineligible}}. With the background, I'm not so sure: there is some element of creativity here. It's really pushing the limits. I am, therefore, inclined to Delete, although it is a close call and a tough decision (and that's why this request has been open for so long). It would be good to have further input before closing this one, I think. Patríciamsg22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNote that the backgroud gradient changes its colours at the very same place where "demo" and "cratas" blend together, creating an oblique line that corresponds to the inclination of the italic lettering. I mean: there is indeed some level of creative artwork to justify the deletion.--Gaf.arq06:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted branding from the "Democratas" Party in Brazil, see [49]. It's not a logotype written on a generic typeface: it's rather a designed artwork --Gaf.arq01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-ineligible}} does not apply cause this artwork was subject to creative work. The geometric shapes are not "simple" nor "natural". As it is a copyrighted work from some graphic designer, it should be deleted.--Gaf.arq02:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask all of you to stop nit-picking on each other; whatever arguments you have on pt.wiki are not to be brought to this deletion debate; nor past deletion debates that have absolutely anything to do with the present situation. Please.
I think this is a hard, borderline case. If there was no background, it would certainly be {{PD-ineligible}}. With the background, I'm not so sure: there is some element of creativity here. It's really pushing the limits. I am, therefore, inclined to Delete, although it is a close call and a tough decision (and that's why this request has been open for so long). It would be good to have further input before closing this one, I think. Patríciamsg22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNote that the backgroud gradient changes its colours at the very same place where "demo" and "cratas" blend together, creating an oblique line that corresponds to the inclination of the italic lettering. I mean: there is indeed some level of creative artwork to justify the deletion.--Gaf.arq06:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could download it, convert it to another file format, and convert it back, so that other browsers won't have that problem. I'm on Vista. Patstuart19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. No source, unused. Indeed Opera (9.26) can open the file without problems; it shows what appears to be a photoshopped negative, maybe a screenshot, showing a man with long hair, glowing green skin, wearing a brown suit. Lupo18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't find a description on the site but it sells "Thangka Paintings created by monks in Kathmandu (Nepal) and Tibet. Each thangka comes framed in traditional Tibetan silk brocade and veil." Therefore not old Secretlondon19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template states that the image consists entirely of "information". An example of this would be a simple geometric shape or a datasheet, and it should not be applied to creative works such as this. It also states that the image "contains no original authorship", which is clearly false. The placement and design of the elements of the coat of arms are most definitely of copyrightable originality, so Delete. —LX (talk, contribs)17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the suggested deletion, presumably, is that Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, and it has not been shown why this would be the case for this image. There is a claim that the image is not copyrightable, but there is no convincing argument as to why it wouldn't be. —LX (talk, contribs)21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a member of POLISARIO or the SADR government that thinks this image is copyrighted and/or not free to use, more power to you. Unless you can do that, however, I doubt there is a way for you to attain evidence against its legitimacy here in its current state or any other — and without such evidence, I don't see how your arguments for this deletion request will ever have a leg to stand on. ¦ Reisio01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFAIK, the coats of arms are just representations of a description. In this case, some legal text of the SADR (the Constitution or other law) says that the coat of arms of the SADR "depicts two crossed rifles with the SADR flag hanging from either gun..." and Reisio made that. Reisio made an image based in that description just like we have done in all the coats of arms present in Commons... maybe the copyright tag isn't the correct one but that's not a reason for deleting the image. --B1mbo17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Reisio has made the image (based on the description and not some "official" representation of it) then yes he can release the image under any applicable license he wants. But there is no information on the image description page suggesting that Reisio made the image himself. / Lokal_Profil17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and if there were such information, it would still just be my word against yours. This deletion request is nonsense. ¦ Reisio03:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although a discussion about whether Coat of arms of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg is a better name for the image might be good it's not a condition warranting the deletion of the image. This nomination is concerned with the copyright of the image. /Lokal_Profil16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very noticeable that Wikimedia Commons allows national flag and coat-of-arms symbols to be hosted here, even though in many cases they may be subject to concerns similar to those raised by Lokal Profil. This being the case, I would like to know how the status of this image differs significantly from a number of national flag and national coat of arms images... AnonMoos11:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because this one is incorrectly tagged with PD-ineligible and hasn't got a source. Free versions of CoAs are possible by freely interpreting the blasoning, when it comes to flags I'm less sure. Yes you are right in that we have a lot of images with problematic copyrightstatus, but thats not the same as saying that we allow it. /Lokal_Profil13:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. If anyone has come up with a proper source, I may upload this to the English and Chinese Wikipedias, if needed by those projects. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep - it's from Taiwan, per the domain address. To be honest, given the nature of pd-art tags, it seems we shouldn't be deleted files unless we have proof pd-art doesn't apply in said country. Default should be to keep, especially with Wikipedia servers in US. Patstuart19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domain doesn't tell us anything about the origin of the artwork. And there's no indication whether it's some 14th century painting or made in 1960. --91.65.124.3423:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. No source. As the IP said this picture could be well preserved from 14th century, or it can be painted a few years ago. Without a source that can't be said. Cecil14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Comment I've added the source and a justification for the license Pd-Old. The photo was made probably about 1900 or somewhat earlier, since Auguste Beernaert received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1909. If you check the article Public domain, you'll find the text "The copyright in a published work expires in all countries (except Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) when any of the following conditions are satisfied :
The work was created and first published before 1 January 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later"
Since August Beernaert died in 1912, the photo was certainly published before 1 January 1923 and therefore the license Pd-Old applies. I ask you then to remove the speedy deletion template from the image. JoJan14:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean en:Public domain. Well, never trust an unsourced statement at the English Wikipedia. It should be "all" instead of "any" if this is to apply world-wide. And the alleged source (Hirtle's chart) doesn't even mention Honduras, Mexico, etc. And it ignores the effects of the URAA. It's original research of the worst kind. And it applies only to published works of known authors. Who was the photographer? When did he die? Or is there a reputable source saying that the photographer was unknown? The we could maybe claim it were an anonymous work. We'd still need a publication date to be certain. (Though assuming 1909 in some Nobel publication would probably be sensible.) Lupo16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Seems reasonable to assume some Nobel publication around 1909, which is long enough ago for this to be PD whether the photographer is known or not. MichaelMaggs18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the Finnish law (9 §) decisions and statements by authorities or public bodies are in the public domain. However, these images are not decisions nor statements.
the image page description states that the images were "Released by the Finnish police at a press conference" so this would have been part of a statement no?? --Markie23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in this case. "Statement" in this case means a publicly given, usually written opinion or instructions that is meant to instruct and influence how other authorities should act. Samulili07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not very good at explaining what a "lausuma" (statement in Finnish) is, but media is not an authority/public body. (To effect the acts of media or citizens, the police could give orders and make decisions and these would be in the public domain, but these image are not decisions/orders.) Samulili08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The lausuma definitely does not cover all official works. The context of the §9.1 is to put into public domain all such official material which might be used in public discussion about the authorities and the law. The form is päätös tai lausuma. To qualify as päätös (decision), the work must actually include a legally binding decision about subject on which the authority has jurisdiction over. (Finnish coats of arms are a typical example of material included in decisions) A lausuma (statement) is a broader category. I would say that all material which has a binding effect on the authority or presents its official view, is covered by this category. For example, a statement might be a brief filed by an authority in a administrative judicial process. It might be an annual report. It might also be material presented by an official to a decision-making body, even if the proposal is not accepted by the body. (In this case, it would be a statement by the presenting official.) The statement may be directed to other authorities or to the public, but it must be completely offical. The information leaflets or most research publications of the authorities do not fill this requirement. (Usually, the information leaflets refer the reader to the actual statements.)
In this case, the question is whether the informational material made by the KRP and given to the media is a part of the "statement". I would definitely say that considering the situation, the verbal part of the media conference was for the most part a "statement", as the official police view was presented. However, we usually don't consider the informational material handed out by the authorities to be "statements", as they do not bind the police legally. Later, the police will have ready the official report on the incident. If that report includes photos, they are definitely in public domain. However, the current photos are not part of any official "statement". Therefore, I vote Delete. --MPorciusCato11:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decision or statement does not equal to cropping an image from PDF document. What a funny world outside the Internets. I watched the KRP statement about the investigation of the murders, and those images were released as a part of it to the public. Such material can't be copyrighted. I clearly understand that not all official works are public domain, but it is clear these images were released in the statement while others weren't. Investigation statements are statements by a public body. --Pudeo16:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way you use the word "statement" would in Finnish be "ilmoitus" or "tiedotus" (cf. "tiedotustilaisuus") which, depending on the context, in English can be translated as "statement". But we you are not talking about "lausuma" above. Samulili20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"4) viranomaisen tai muun julkisen toimielimen päätöksiin ja lausumiin;". Nothing more is defined. Lausua - lausuma. It can be very easily interpreted to include any official publication by the officials which represents the official view. The law isn't more accurate. Should we be? Viranomaiset antoivat lausuman Jokelan tapahtumista.--Pudeo22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that this seems to boil down to the fact you have not really understood what "lausuma" is and how it connects to the work of officials. Etymological connections are really irrelevant. Samulili06:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say that the language of the Finnish Copyright Act is unclear. Pudeo is correct in saying that in Finnish, you might call the statement given by the Police to the media lausuma (or lausunto), when speaking non-legally. However, the usual practice in Finnish copyright law is to consider the lausuma to be a rather constrained category. Nonetheless, if the photos handed out by the Police in Jokela have been accompanied with any paper that you might call a lausuma, I'd be happy to consider the photos a part of that statement and change my vote. --MPorciusCato06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Swedish-language official law text it is "beslut och yttranden". Remark, statement, conclusion or decision. I do not see a n entry of "lausuma" in Finnish dictionaries, and the law does not specify that it would only be some pdf document. --Pudeo16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but feel that this was flagged not for a copyright issue, but for the fact that someone wants to gain some form of reciprocal respect by acting as a guardian over others by "shielding" them from pictures with a negative connotation. There's no problem at all with these pictures, and if they're deleted the likely thing is people will mirror them. 81.158.240.9913:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They replied saying they are free because they have been released to public domain by the order of the chief of the investigation. They just said they hope source is mentioned and the images not used for "tasteless" purposes: Hei, pahoittelen, että kysymykseesi vastaaminen on kestänyt näin pitkään, mutta tässä vihdoin: Lehdistötiedotteet ja niiden yhteydessä julkaistut kuvat ovat tutkinnanjohtajan päätöksellä julkisia, joten niitä voivat siis käyttää muutkin kuin tiedotusvälineet. Tietysti toivomme, että netissäkin noudatetaan hyviä tapoja, eli mainitaan tekstin tai kuvan lähde silloin kun se julkaistaan jossain yhteydessä, ja että aineistoa ei käytetä epäasiallisella tavalla.
They do not say that the images have been released to public domain (when it comes to works, that would even be impossible). What they do say, is that the images are public, as opposed to secret. They do say that it has been decided that the images are public. However, whether a work is a decisions or statements (or a part thereof) According to the Finnish copyright law (9 §), is not something for them to decide. What they have decided, is that the images are public, ie. not secret. Samulili12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked them whether they have been released to public domain or not! I linked the Wikipedia article and said that a press-license is not enough, and they answered they can be used.
Here is my question:
Onko KRP:n lehdistötiedotteissa julkaistu materiaali (kuvat lähinnä)
hyväksytty vapaaseen levitykseen public domain?
Suomen tekijänoikeuslain (404/1961) 9 § mukaan tekijänoikeutta ei ole 4)
viranomaisen tai muun julkisen toimielimen päätöksiin ja lausumiin.
Kuuluvatko KRP:n tiedotteet näihin? Keskustelua on ollut Wikimedia-säätiön
Wikipediassa, jonka artikkeleissa käytetään tällä hetkellä KRP:n Jokelan
kouluammuskelun lehdistötilaisuudessa julkaisemia kuvia. (http://fi.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Jokelan_koulusurmat) Nyt keskustelussa on, saako kyseisiä kuvia
käyttää vai ei. Wikipediassahan ei käy lehdistölisenssit, vaan kuvien täytyy
olla täysin public domainissa.
Terveisin,
***
It's quite clear they replied they are in public domain, as I didn't ask for anything else. Your blind deletionism is getting more pathetic every day. ;) Of course we could send another one, but since it took over a month for that..--Pudeo14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the wish that images are not used disparagingly is actually a moral right of the author, inalienable by Finnish law. Therefore, a picture with a licence requiring it is as free as it can get. --MPorciusCato17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what you asked is not what they replied to. Unfounded criticism of someone's alleged motives won't make your arguments shine any brighter, by the way. Samulili18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you doubting the authenticity of the question and reply, or just presuming a misunderstanding from the police? You haven't backed your claims of them being unfree yet at all. --Pudeo21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being too enigmatic when I put it this way:
You ask: "Are these images in the public domain according to the 9 § of the Finnish Copyright law?"
They reply: "They are public by the decision of the chief inspector."
Comment I don't know enough to comment on whether they are free, but I request that someone notified us at Wikinews 24 hours in advance if these are to be deleted, so we can upload them localy under fair use. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Regardless of the precise wording, it seems like the intent of the investigators was to make unfettered use of these images available to the general public. On the other hand, they're clearly not decisions or statements, so I've modified the tag to "{{PD-author|the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation}}". Additionally, I suggest mailing the exchange above to OTRS, and will remind User:Pudeo of this. Dcoetzee04:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened. Can you, Dcoetzee, explain how you came to the conclusion that the investigators had the intent of releasing the files to the public domain? Public is not the same as public domain. Samulili10:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already explained my reasoning adequately, and you might have left a note on my talk page before blindly reverting all of my changes, including the ones that modified the inaccurate license statement. I also don't appreciate your insinuation that in your edit summary that my closing was "uninformed", just because your opinion on the matter differs. Regardless of the precise wording, I believe the intention was to release these works into the public domain, based on User:Pudeo's conviction that this was the correct interpretation. In any case I've submitted the information to OTRS and we'll see if they agree. Dcoetzee19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you believe that the intention was something. It seems to me that you base this on what Pudeo said in this discussion but I would like to point out that his interpretion has been disputed by two users in a lengthy and detailed discussion. I think we generally require very explicit and in every way clear statements for releases (see Commons:Email templates). While I also believe that Pudeo acts in good faith, it is customary that the freedom of a work on Commons must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, so to speak.
English is your native language and I'm sorry if I chose a word which bear connotations I did not intend. What I mean is that since you, obviously, don't understand Finnish or know the Finnish legislation, you should've given more weight to the contradicting opinions in order to make a balanced desicion. My intention was not to suggest that your intentions were malignant or anything like that. Samulili20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It just seems like a borderline case because the e-mail that was sent to them apparently did refer explicitly to license terms, and the response seemed to indicate consent to them, but didn't make an explicit statement itself. It seems like the rough equivalent of me asking "Can I use this under public domain terms?" and you just say "Yes" - would this be sufficient or not? I don't really know what the precedent is in a case like this. Dcoetzee20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid OTRS didn't supply me that information, but I'm sure one of the Finnish-speaking participants in this request would be happy to provide one if you require one. Dcoetzee22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I agree it's a bit schizophrenic. With normal films I guess you'd be right, but with cartoons, I think you also have to consider the copyright on the character itself. I don't think one can take stills and claim they were PD—there's a whole bunch of things one cannot do with them, but that one could do with truly PD works. Imagine using Bugs Bunny (for instance, from Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg) in an advertisement without having gotten a license from Warner Bros.... To me, taking a still and publishing that transfers the image to a new medium (still photography instead of movie), and I think the quote given at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg shows that this is problematic. I think we should have very clear evidence that the characters themselves are out of copyright, too, if we want to claim these images were PD. Lupo08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it really comes down to whether the character "likeness" can be used in non-commercial ways or not, i'm sure there's a clear definition of it somewhere, we shouldn't be guessing here. --66.158.232.11805:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "[Personality rights are] the right[s] to charge for (or bar entirely) the commercial exploitation of name, likeness, voice or "personality."" (see Personality Rights) Using these images in a non-commercial manner is 100% legal. --66.158.232.11819:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights are, AFAIK, tied to real persons. We're talking about cartoon characters here, they don't have personality rights. Besides, non-commercial-only is not free. Lupo19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the cartoon is, in fact, public domain, we need something more than just your personal opinion that the individual frames are not, somehow, also in the public domain. 192.6.178.10113:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since this images are useful for the articles.—the preceding unsigned comment was added byDavid Pro (talk • contribs)
That is not a useful argument in a deletion discussion. Most of the images on the front page of latimes.com would be useful for Wikipedia or Wikinews articles, but for some reason, we not upload them to the Wikimedia Commons. --Kjetil r10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every person, every logo, every caracters have rights. You can't use my photo for comercial porpuses, you can't use a photo of an American Airlines jet for comercial porpouses. But the images are still in public domain. If the movies are in public domain, his parts are too. Rossicev14:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it was a mistake to give an example that involved commercial usage. That was just an example. The point is that the character is still copyrighted. This means you also cannot freely do a derivative work of these stills. Consider (again, as an example) creating a derivative work of Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg by cutting out Bugs from the image. As a derivative of a copyrighted character, this cut-out would not be free! Publishing it would be subject to the consent of the copyright owner on Bugs Bunny, i.e., of Warner Bros. Sorry guys, but these are just not free unless the character copyright also has expired. It's similar to the situation with music: a particular recording may have entered the public domain, and you can thus play it freely anywhere without paying royalties. But unless the underlying score is also PD, you'll need a license for a performance of the musical work. (Note that I said "similar". It's an analogy. I am well aware of the differences between movies and audio recordings. I'm just trying to explain where the problem is.) Lupo15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, I don't know, but this isn't something that should be decided though consensus. Either it's legally fine to have these images or it's not. Personally, I'm not sure all the characters are copyrighted, because wouldn't their copyright have expired when the movies did, since they were copyrighted at the same time? You can't continuously renew copyrights. (However, they may be protected by trademark, which lasts as long as it's being used. I know most of the Disney characters are.) Rocket00021:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, if we don't receive any legal counsel and do have to decide for ourselves, maybe it would be best to delete them. I was just thinking about a recent situation involving superman. Rocket00021:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the same situation. The images (or movies) themselves are Public Domain, however, outside of copyright, there may be other issues which prevent them from being used in any way. Rocket00018:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some cartoon characters are trademarked too, but that's a seperate issue. In this case, it's not necessarily how you use the works that would be a violation (which would pertain to TM), but simply the distribution of them. They may not be copyrighted, but other copyrights can prevent their free use. Rocket00018:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, leaving the trademarks... the image Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg. Cut off Pikachu, make some adjustments in photoshop and... You can't use it. The image above is an example, other photos can take images from other parts, maybe with a "clean" image of the characters. Rossicev12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say "keep", for the reason that the orginal frames are PD as well, and because of Rossicev's comment: in EVERY PD-image you can find SOMETHING which is, under SOME law, under copyright. Herodotus17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could add a comment (maybe in the form of a template), with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic.
Herodotus17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon hundreds of observed samples of commercial works (public domain videos seen over the last two decades), still images from the public domain film in question, and even derivative images, are allowed when used in reference to the work itself. I've never really heard anything about studios coming after public domain video makers who use stills or derivative drawings based directly upon images in the public domain cartoons they are selling, even when said images are of recognizable characters still owned by large corporations (Elmer Fudd, Superman, Popeye, etc.). In addition, I have never seen a single one of these items credit the original copyright holders or even the holders of the current copyrights or trademarks. As I understand it, you have to copyright each and every distinct usage of a character; if a particular usage falls into the public domain, then that particular item can be used for a number of uses, so long as you are not using the likeness of a trademarked character in a new derivative work which has nothing directly to do with promoting or exhibiting the public domain film in question (because a new derivative work featuring, say, Bugs Bunny, based upon Falling Hare could easily be found to be derivative of another Bugs Bunny cartoon because they all use the same character design. Therefore, you could appear to be infringing Warners' copyright on any number of the other hundreds of Bugs Bunny cartoons. The only context you would be able to use an image of Falling Hare with Bugs' name and likeness without express permission would be some sort of educational/informational project specifically relating to that film or the film series. But that's what we do here). Someone should try and contact an entertainment lawyer before hastily deleting all of these public-domain images, but I really don't think there's an issue here, especially since this is not-for-profit educational use.
c. Literary Characters. To the extent a literary character becomes associated with a particular producer or source, it can be protected under trademark and unfair competition laws -- even if the character is no longer protected by copyright. For example, "Popeye," who made his first appearance in 1929 in a weekly cartoon strip called "The Thimble Theatre," will slip unconscious into the public domain on January 1, 2024. The fact the original "Popeye" character will fall into the public domain, does not preclude King Features from claiming trademark rights in the character, or protecting later strips or non-trivial changes to the original character. However, it is debatable whether they could stop you from copying the public domain strips if you carefully alerted purchasers that you were not doing it with the authority of King Features, and it was a faithful reproduction.
"Trademark infringement can only occur when someone's trademark is used without permission as a trademark to help consumers identify the source of goods or services. This can only occur in a commercial context - that is, where a trademark is used in advertising or on a product or merchandise.
Informational or 'editorial' uses of trademarks are always permitted - especially where they are the only way to refer to or discuss a particular product or service. Uses such as these inform, educate, or express opinions or ideas protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press. For example, permission is not required to use the Chevrolet logo in an article describing Chevrolet trucks, even if the article is critical of the company. Similarly, permission is not needed if a Coca-Cola sign appears in a news report or documentary film."
I'm pretty sure that any Wikimedia uses of these works is perfectly fine (as someone suggested above, we may need a tag which prevents people from using some of these to create derivative, non-informational commerical works). --FuriousFreddy9904:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That´s nonsense, Freddy. The content of Wikipedia has to be completely free, also for commercial use and not only for educational use. What you mean is fair use, but fair use isn´t allowed in Commons. And don´t mix "copyright law" up with "trademark law". These are completely different laws. Chaddy02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Herodotus: That also applys to you. "A comment with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic" is also fair use and incompatible with pillar no. 3. By the way: Delete because these images are a copyright violation. Chaddy02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the remark on the Snow White stills: Character copyright would be Disney's.
This is untrue. The characters of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are public domain, since they are much older than the Disney adaption (like the Grimm-adaptions).
I think the debate on the Snow White -stills is another one than on the Fleischer/WB-cartoons. The Snow White-stills feature public domain-characters, they are from a public domain-trailer, but the original work is still under copyright.
The Betty Boop, Popeye etc.-stills are from public domain-works, only the characters are trademarked.
I propose a separation of these debates. Herodotus00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a contentious issue since the cartoons from which the images are taken from are in the public domain. I actually question the public domain status of the cartoons themselves. I think the copyright holders of the characters in these cartoons could enforce their copyright on these works if they wanted to and they would have a decent case. Although the cartoons have clerically lapsed into the public domain, it remains that they're derivative work of characters that are still under copyright.
Legal challenges were made about the film It's a Wonderful Life, since the film can be classified as derivative work of a copyrighted story. As a result, the film is no longer considered public domain. I think the images in question and the cartoons they come from aren't in public domain, so these images should be deleted. Jtalledo18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But in that case, shouldn't any reproduction of the characters also be illegal? I mean, if I go to DisneyWorld and take pictures of Mickey and Minnie (the big costumes) and upload here it would still be illegal, since the Mickey and Minnie-characters are copyright to Disney? Which in turn means that no Wikipedia-pages concerning animated characters can ever be illustrated. Or does the legality of the pictures only come into question if the pictures are animated (screencaps from trailers, movies or posters, etc)? Icea17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep'. Why did we must delete it? it rights are now falled and it no belong to the DC Comics,so why delete it?
'Keep' as per other comments. This is from the trailer, which comes out before the movie. If the movie is PD then anything before that in relation to this movie is PD...why would it not be? DragonFire102401:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they can sell DVDs of the Max Fleischer 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 at Wal-Mart without any form of license from DC Comics, I really don't see why we can't host screen-grabs of those same cartoons here on Wikimedia Commons. Presumably the companies that publish these DVDs can afford legal advice from actual lawyers. AnonMoos14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not Wal-Mart here. This is WikiCommons. We host thousands of free images (and other media). We must keep the copyright. Only because the cartoons get selled in a supermarket, they are not free. Or do you think, the cartoon series "the Simpsons" is free? You can buy a Simpsons DVD at Wal-Mart, too... Chaddy16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you really didn't understanding what I was saying. Cheap DVDs are sold in many places WITHOUT any license from DC Comics because the Max Fleischer cartoons are OUT OF COPYRIGHT in the United States of America (as discussed on the Wikipedia article en:Superman_(1940s_cartoons)). An "official" DC Comics DVD release of these cartoons would almost certainly cost a hell of a lot more than $1. Therefore your comments didn't particularly contribute anything useful to this discussion. 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you... May be, the cartoons are PD in the USA. But in the rest of the world, they are still copyrighted. So they can´t be used on Commons. Chaddy18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the general rule for Commons is that images should be "free" both in their country of origin and the United States. Since in this case the U.S. is the country of origin, U.S. law is the all that matters to us here. AnonMoos19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're PD. Try selling a derivative work. The character is copyrighted. They're in some limbo state until the character copyright expires. Lupo20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg is a simple screen grab from a cartoon which is in the public domain in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that super-cheap DVD's of those cartoons are sold above-the-board in many legitimate retail outlets in the United States as of this very moment. If the cartoon itself is in the Public Domain (something which DC Comics / Warner Brothers doesn't seem to have contested), then why isn't the screen grab of the PD cartoon also PD?? AnonMoos20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He talks about how the process of "fixing something in a different medium" mysteriously changes something from Public Domain to Copyrighted -- but as far as I can see, the cartoon is made up of still frames shown in consecutive order at a rate of 24 frames per second, so if the whole cartoon is Public Domain, then each of the individual frames which compose it must also be in the Public Domain. AnonMoos02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) I don't understand the concept of 'the characters are still in copyright' - copyright pertains to an instance, a publication of a particular item. So some drawings, the original drawings perhaps, of these characters are still copyrighted? The 'characters' are not copyrighted (that doesn't make sense to me, unless there is some special case for characters?). If cartoons are considered derivative works, then I'd expect anyone who owns copyright of the 'original' drawings of the characters to complain - have they ever asserted this, are the cartoons not really PD? The next thing that occurs to me is that cutting frames from the cartoon strip is creating derivative works of the cartoon (the cartoon is one very long image that is usually viewed a little bit at a time (a frame at a time)) - the license status of this derivative work depends on the status of the parent work - fairly straight forward? The only important question is whether the cartoon is actually PD? --Tony Wills10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the argument (Lupo, please correct me if I'm wrong), the suggestion is that each of these images show characters that:
(a) appeared in some first publication (let's call it A) (eg a book or a film) which still remains in copyright, and
(b) that these images are stills taken from a later derivative cartoon (let's call it B) on which for some reason (eg copyright owner forgot to renew under US law?) the copyright has expired.
I agree that the expression "copyright in a character" isn't strictly speaking correct, but what is presumably meant here is "copyright in the appearance of a character as it was actually drawn in A".
On that basis, the owner of the copyright in A can eg under Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,1128 (9th Cir. 1979) prevent others from creating new images which infringe that original copyright, even if those new images are also derivative or partly derivative of one of the PD images in B. It would be OK of course to create a new image which is derivative of B only, but for this type of character it may be in practice be difficult or impossible to make a derivative of B which is not also an infringing derivative of A.
Note that it's perfectly OK to use any B image as it is, without amendment, which is why Wal-Mart's lawyers have no doubt advised that they are free to sell copies of 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 without needing a licence from DC Comics. Any company that wanted to sell comics or DVDs that differed in any way from the 1940's PD cartoons would however need a licence.
Now it's clear that this only applies if there is some earlier drawing A which is still in copyright. If the character was first drawn for the cartoon B, with no earlier appearance, then once that cartoon has fallen into the public domain anyone is free to copy it, including making derivative versions.
Not all of the images listed above have the necessary information immediately available, and I think we need to look at the images and characters one by one. For each, we need to find out if we can whether there was some earlier appearance, and if so whether that earliest work is still in copyright. If so, we arguably can't release the cartoon stills (whether PD or not) under the four freedoms, as Lupo suggests. If the earliest work is now copyright-free we then need to look critically at the validity of the PD claim that has been made for the specific cartoon. If both works A and B are PD are we in the clear. Of course, if the cartoon is itself the earliest copyright work, and it is truly PD, then we are OK as well.
It's by no means clear to me that we ought to delete even if it can be shown that there exist other images, A, that are still in copyright. Surely the rule here is that we delete if an image is restricted in use by virtue of its own copyright protection. I would argue there is no consensus, yet, that we should delete an image B on the grounds that modifying it might infringe the copyright of some other image, A. By all means let's tag these images to warn people of the existence of A, and leave it to users to take their own legal advice as to the extent they can modify and re-use B without running into copyright problems with A.
In practice no-one is able to use these images B commercially anyway because of some very strongly-enforced non-copyright constraints such as trademark rights, and passing off/unfair competition rights, so any additional copyright-constraint arising from A may in fact make no practical difference. We may end up deleting large numbers of useful images that are perfectly OK if used unamended on Wikipedia or elsewhere just because there may be copyright constraints based on some other images that we don't host, copyright constraints that in practice make little or no difference to how the images can actually be used.
For those reasons, I would Keep, and tag with an appropriate warning (assuming someone can verify the claim that the cartoons have in fact now fallen into the public domain). --MichaelMaggs15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect (but then copyright law has nothing to do with expectations ;-) that derivatives consisting of short exerps of a PD film would also be PD (down to single frames?) - no creativity has been added, no new copyright is generated. I now think that problems only arise when re-arranging frames or cutting bits from frames which could truely be said to create derivative works. We have a bit of a precident for the original being free license, but derivatives being problematic: the case of freedom-of-panorama images which contain some element (eg logo in the background) which, if cut out on its own, would be a copyright violation. Perhaps just a standard warning about how derivatives might infringe copyright --Tony Wills20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split up and relist Honestly, while it would be nice to deal with an issue such as this, there are so many images being discussed here and each has their own little nuance on why they are here. I feel like we should focus on each image individually. User:Zscout370(Return fire)09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's what Wikipedia's own article on derivative works has to say:
When a derivative work is copyrighted, 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) dictates that, [t]he copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Thus, registering a derivative work will not artificially extend the length or scope of protection of the underlying work.
To me, it sound's like Lupo is arguing that, since the characters have appeared in derivative works since the original (now expired) work, the characters are still under copyright. This does not jive with the explanation of derivative works above. Please explain if I misunderstand Lupo's argument. - 75.68.224.23616:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the above, let's look at a specific example: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Allegedly, the copyright on Disney's 1937 movie expired because it was not renewed. Assuming this is true, the film is now in the public domain. As for the characters, i.e. the seven dwarfs and Snow White, they (Disney's version of these characters) made their first appearance in this film. So any supposed "copyright on the characters" is the same copyright that the film was protected under. The truth is, there is no separate copyright on the characters. The entire film is a single work with a single copyright protecting it and everything contained in it.
If the characters appeared in later films, then these new films do not renew or otherwise extend the copyright term of the original film, because the creation of derivative works does not extend the duration of the copyright of the original (as explained above). Once the original film's copyright expires, so too does the copyright on all content within the film, including the characters.
Of course, the characters might be trademarked, which is an entirely different thing from copyright. And there is no problem with trademarks being displayed in an encyclopedia or other reference material, so this should not affect the ability of these images to be displayed here.
It seems to me that Lupo's argument is based on either the erroneous assumption that copyrights on derivative works can somehow extend the copyright of original works, or on the erroneous confusion of copyrights and trademarks. Again, if I'm wrong and misunderstand your argument, Lupo, please clarify why you believe that the copyrights on the characters are still in effect if the copyright on the original films (or books, or whatever) that the characters first appeared in has expired. Regards, Moulding20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I don't think it is even possible to "copyright a character", in the sense that you could put a copyright on any and all likenesses of a character. The reason is because a copyright can only be obtained on a specific instance of some fixed, tangible work. For instance, you could copyright a drawing of Mickey Mouse standing up. But that copyright would not cover a different drawing of Mickey Mouse where he is sitting in a chair, because these are two distinct works. Now, the second drawing might be considered a derivative of the first if they are similar enough. But this is not the same thing as a copyright on a character. The copyright was on a specific drawing of Mickey Mouse. And the second drawing was a derivative of the first. Using the phrase "copyright on the character" instead of "copyright on the drawing" is a bit misleading. Moulding21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Characters are copyrighted. It would be illegal for me to write another Harry Potter book, even if I changed the names due to it being a derivative of the character. -Nard21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you may be infringing a copyright if you wrote a new book that was too similar to the Harry Potter series, even if you changed the names. But it would need to be similar enough to be considered a derivative of one or more of the existing Harry Potter books. In the end, the copyright you are infringing is not a copyright on Harry (the character) but a copyright on a specific Harry Potter novel. This is precisely the distinction I am trying to point out: it is the book that is copyrighted, not the character. But because the character appears in the book, the copyright on the book also protects the character. Some here are confusing the matter by attempting to claim that the character Harry could somehow be protected by a copyright that is distinct from the copyright on the book. This is simply not the case. Moulding22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the distinction compelling: if the first harry potter book were out of copyright, and the last harry potter book was not, creating a generally derivative work using harry potter would be in violation because for protection of the copyright holder, the latest parentage for the derivative work has to be assumed (so the latest harry potter book), whereas directly reproducing a part of the first, copyright expired book would necessarily have to be acceptable to protect any kind of fair use from the claim that a newer work under copyright happens to contain the same character. Situations different than that scenario would either imply that fair use was impossible to execute(J.K. Rowlings just wrote about Luna Lovegood in her latest book, so you can only use pages 23 and 19 of the out-of-copyright book now!) or that copyright was impossible to execute (I wrote a fan book with harry potter in it, but it's the old harry potter, so you can't sue me!). 137.238.84.7006:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about these pictures? [54][55]. It says they qualify as fair use. What is the difference with the above listed images? Anyway, I think the examples about using Harry Potter to write an alternative novel or make a new film are entirely different from showing a sample of a film character to inform about the film or character, stating who its author or owner is, in an encyclopedic work (which is non-profit BTW).—the preceding unsigned comment was added by150.241.250.3 (talk • contribs)
Comment I note at least one of these characaters, Olive Oyl, dates back to the 1910s (originally as a newspaper cartoon character), so the character design would be PD-US as well in addition to whatever relevent copyright of the film cartoon. -- Infrogmation21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By all appearances, in practice, these films are in the public domain. You could not, admittedly, create a Superman cartoon as a derivative work of them, but this is largely because you would be hard-pressed to argue that it is a derivative work only of these cartoons and not of the still-under-copyright comics. You could certainly create a spin-off of any of the villains or non-comics-based characters. As for the individual screencap, the cartoons are freely available as it stands, and the screencaps thus are as well. Phil Sandifer15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The law is clear. It's not so simple as declaring that a single work is or isn't copyrighted when it adapts previously existing copyrighted works. It is not disputed that Superman as a character, including his appearance, is copyrighted. Superman was not introduced in the Fleischer cartoons, but previously in DC Comics, and DC properly renewed the copyrights in all of its titles featuring Superman. The character's copyright is therefore not dependent upon the status of the Fleischer cartoons' copyright in any way. The Fleischer cartoons then entered the public domain when their copyright was not renewed. But that means that only the elements that originated in those cartoons—whatever Fleischer studios itself authored—became public domain. As those cartoons contained elements from preexisting, independently copyrighted works (the character of Superman, the character of Lois Lane, etc.), whatever elements Fleischer Studios made use of but did not author could not be released into the public domain by their inaction (the fact that their use was licensed also has no bearing on this issue). Read the Wikipedia article on It's a Wonderful Life to look at it another way. The film is in the public domain. However, the story that it adapted is not. This means that the story's authors have rights over whatever portions of the film derive from that story, but everything else that originated in that film (still images would apply here because a photograph can't copy a non-visual narrative) is public domain. Postdlf15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misframing the issue here - the issue is not the copyright of Superman, but the copyright of this licensed and legally created image of Superman. Which nobody, it seems to me, disputes the freedom of, since the cartoon it came from is widely distributed for free and without license fees. There is a muddied issue of derivative works here - as I said, one probably cannot create a Superman comic and claim it is derived from the Fleischer cartoons, not the comic (If only because such a claim would be laughed at). But the point remains that the cartoon itself is public domain, and is routinely distributed as such. Phil Sandifer16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is entirely the copyright of Superman. Saying that a work is in the public domain is to say that no one has copyright in it. However, the nature of a derivative work is that it incorporates preexisting elements in which others have copyright. This means that multiple authors may have rights over one single work. The Fleischer Studios cartoon is a derivative of the Superman character and comic book stories. That it was licensed just means that DC gave them permission and couldn't sue them for doing this. Then Fleischer Studios didn't renew their copyrights, and so Fleischer lost their rights over the cartoons. Their rights only encompassed what they authored in those cartoons, not what they made derivative use of. What Fleischer Studios authored is now in the public domain, nothing more. Once again, the cartoons are works of composite authorship—DC's preexisting properties and Fleischer Studios' animation. The loss of Fleischer Studios' rights did not and could not affect DC's rights, which are separate and preexisting. To say the cartoon is in the public domain is only to say that what originated in that cartoon may be freely used. Postdlf16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superman is actually a different case from the other images by the looks of it. The drawings of superman in comics that are still copyrighted and predate the cartoons may well be sufficient to restrict the use of the cartoon stills. In the other cases, I don't think any copyrighted representations of the characters predate the cartoon appearances that are now PD. The argument for deleting the superman stills is therefore much stronger. WjBscribe17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that Russell v. Price and Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings have to be read to mean that in US law, the fact that a derivative is now in the public domain does not mean that distribution of the derivative does not continue to be affected by copyright on the original work or concept. In this case, if the characters are still the subject of copyright, these stills could be used in a number of ways quite legitimately - their use on Wikipedias for example would be legally sound. But they probably cannot be modified and commercially re-used. One could not for example crop bugs bunny from an image, add the character into another image and sell it as a poster. That would infringe rights to the bugs bunny character. Given that modification and commercial reuse must be possible for images to be considered "free", I think I have to conclude that these are not. Obviously local projects would be strongly encouraged to keep copies of these stills under appropriate fair use rationales. However, I would like to see more argument to confirm that these characters are indeed still the subject of copyright - how has this legal protection been maintained? Presumably simple appearances in later derivatives still the subject of copyright would not be enough. Could someone clarify the basis for saying these characters are still subject to copyright? I suspect those characters are registered trademarks but Commons hosts many images that are trademarks. I am not sure one can have "copyright" over a character, as opposed to specific representation of a character. WjBscribe17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can have copyright over a character that is separate and apart from specific works that portray or make use of that character. American copyright case law is consistent on this (I remember in particular a case involving James Bond and an infringing commercial that had a tuxedo-wearing, suave action hero). Otherwise, anyone could make derivative use of any character without licensing. Plus we're dealing with a visual representation of a character here—a graphic image consisting of the character's costume and other appearance. Postdlf17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No James Bond films or books are in the public domain though - and my vague recollection is that the case you refer to is actually about an actor's contract (Pierce Brosnan could not appear in a full tuxedo in "The Thomas Crown Affair" because of his contractual obligations from playing James Bond). If no appearances of a chracter are PD, then any recreation of them (or something similar) violates copyright - its a derivative of a copyrighted work. But it is the appearance of the character - photo, movie etc. that is copyrighted, not the character itself. The character's protection is derived from the fact that its appeances are all copyrighted. If the "first drawing" of one of the characters is still copyrighted, then derivatives of that images are a problem. But copyright on a character could not be created by their continuing to appear in copyrighted derivatives if the original appearances are now PD. But I admit my expertise is limited to European (not US) copyright law - I would like to see something that confirms this idea that US law recognises some sort of separate copyright of a character. At the moment, I think people are confused by the fact that these characters are trademarked and that they have appeared in later drawings that are still copyrighted. WjBscribe17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The James Bond case involved a car commercial, it had nothing to do with contract law; see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("the Court FINDS as a matter of law that Plaintiffs own the copyright to the James Bond character as expressed and delineated in their 16 films."). And as the case law discussed in that case makes clear, it's not just the visual appearance of graphic characters that can be copyrighted; purely literary characters can be copyrighted too, if they are sufficiently distinct. Whether a portraying work is PD only matters for the fate of that character's copyright if that character originated in that work. Once again, if a particular work enters the public domain, that only means that no one holds copyright to what originated in that work.Postdlf17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in some of these instances, the drawings now in the PD are the original works. With the superman images I think it ma be right that the comics that predate the cartoons means that all we have is a PD derivative. What I am asking about is the situation where the cartoons that are now PD are the first drawings of the character. Ideas cannot be the subject of copyright by themselves. Lets try a simple hypothetical scenario. I come up with the idea of "Chloe the Kangaroo" and make some drawings of her in black and white. Years later, I make more detailed drawings of her in colour. I fail to renew the copyright on my black and white drawings but the colour ones are still in copyright. "Chloe the Kangaroo" does not exist, only black and white and colour drawings of her. The black and white drawings of her are now PD and I cannot prevent those images being used in derivatives. However if the derivative is colour and closely resembles those drawings, I may have an action for infringing my copyright on the colour images of Chloe. If it were the other way round (b&w still copyright, colour not) then it must be right that the colour images are mere derivatives and their becoming PD does not affect the original copyright. Of course, I may protect my interest in "Chloe" with a trademark but it is copyright under discussion here. Does that make sense, where all we have are drawings, the only copyright there can possibly is in the drawings. WjBscribe18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If in fact the originating works for any of those characters are in the public domain, then yes, the character as portrayed in those works would also be public domain. If the character was further developed or modified in later works that are still copyrighted, then those later changes to the character would not be public domain (you have to conceptually deconstruct the elements of a character to deal with this). So can you actually document that for any of the above characters, the images are not derivatives of prior works that are still copyrighted? Postdlf18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this was what this discussion here needs to focus on: for each of the images deleted, is there (or is there not) a previous copyrighted representation of the character that may restrict the ability to reuse the derivative that is now in the public domain. A blanket nomination is unhelful - each of the images listed may raise separate issues that need to be investigated. WjBscribe18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the issue. But there's no point in splitting any of them off from this discussion absent any proof that there are no prior copyrighted works from which these derive. The burden should be on those asserting that the image is freely usable. Postdlf18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-evaluate on a case by case basis before renominating - I have some experience in US intellectual property law and I have never heard of this idea that you can copyright a character in the sense that it is being used here. Please give a citation for this concept. People are very badly mixing trademark law in above as well, the only non-commercial/educational issues mentioned in the cases above relate to trademarks and have nothing whatsoever to do with the demands of the CC or GFDL licenses, which are copyright licenses. Under copyright law if these are in the public domain you can make any use of them you wish, on the other hand, you may end up having to pay damages to the trademark owners (who may not even be the same as the former copyright holders) or even get enjoined from using trademarks if you insist on trying to use them commercially. I understand that there is the idea of an intervening expired copyright wherein the original work could still be copyrighted, but that needs to be evaluated separately and on a case by case basis and shouldn't require deletion of the PD derivative work under our policies, unless w:User:Mike Godwin says otherwise. (I will caveat this however by saying that I am much less familiar with Commons policies than with English Wikipedia policies - my experience in the past on Commons being primarily for uploading my own images - so I may be missing something.) --BewareofDoug19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (aka w:User:Doug)[reply]
Could you clarify for me at all? Your answer seems to indicate that using these images would not infringe on the copyright which is currently held on the Superman character who debuted in 1939. What is the nature of that copyright? Is it possible that this image could be used in any manner which would not infringe on that copyright? For example, if I created a comic book, with my own novel story, using these images, would that be free or would it infringe any copyright held in the Superman character? If this comic book would infringe then there is still some copyright attached in this image, yes? To me, this looks like it may well be in the public domain, but with the protections that the current copyright holder already has on the Superman character, it is more likely that this image can be used similar to a creative commons no derivatives license or a rights restricted license. If that is the case, we must review Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses which clearly states: All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also Commons:Criteria for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Based on that, if it is indeed the case that not all derivatives of this image can be allowed under copyright law, then this image does not meet the commons criteria and must be deleted. This debate needs to focus on that main point of commons policy. Can all derivatives of this work be allowed, can these images be used for any purpose, including creating new comic books featuring the character depicted, or would existing copyrights on the Superman character prevent them. I believe derivatives could infringe copyright on the Superman character, and therefore the images must be deleted to comply with Commons policy. Hiding16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia content guidelines on the public domain with regard to animated movies (cartoons), at least some fictional characters can be copyrighted. At the same time, for a movie to be treated as being in the public domain, the guidelines specify that the movie cannot contain any copyrighted characters. (This is not to say that every fictional character is copyrighted.) There might be something to be said for considering the images on a case-by-case basis. -- Gazebo05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Relist on an individual basis - the copyright issues around these specific images are too fuzzy for us to draw a clear general conclusion. It's better to nominate a single image, get input from some professional IP lawyers, and begin to set a precedent for other deletions if necessary. Dcoetzee04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this, now that I look at it more closely, I see that a portion that looked like land is actually shallow water, so this does appear to be correct. Unfortunately the lack of source info does remain. -- Gyrofrog (talk)06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A museum does not get copyright on an object in the PD by possessing it. In fact nobody gets copyright on an object just by owning or possessing it. --Simonxag14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was originally uploaded by WOI at en.WP, who says in one of his upload summaries, "I am the owner/founder of Wheels Of Italy...all info is open source. Just don't sell the logo. :)" Doesn't really mean anything, just that he's against commercial use. Looking at his history, it seems he was just looking for some free advertising. The web page's actually fully copyrighted. Rocket00006:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio. This is Ana Vega's CV and is therefore copyright by her. Perhaps the uploader is Ana Vega, but they have not explicitly claimed to be her. --Simonxag14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I'd chastise you for failing to search the version history for vandalism removing the license (which there is), but the image is also unused in any of the projects (de.wiki has a different file locally with the same name). No need to hang onto an unused personal photo. -Nard02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo includes two copyrighted posters. Normally I might regard it as "incidental inclusion"; however, without them, this would be a fairly empty image. Furthermore, outside of Commons this image is only used in Calvin & Hobbes articles to show the poster (fr, it, pt, es), which strikes me too much as trying to weasel around the copyright. Davepape20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no counterargument. I simply imported this file from en. It's no longer there. So I guess that's that! Too bad, as it's a useful image. --Iustinus18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this image was deleted from en:Wiki, it should also be deleted from Commons because it lacks author/source info. Thanks, --Popalzai21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was deleted from en:Wikipedia simply because it had been copied to Commons. I went to en:Wikipedia to notify the original uploader there, User:Larsinio, about this discussion, but I see that they were already notified on 8 October. That user has not been active on en since March. -- Infrogmation14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The reason why I have uploaded this image here is because some user have uploaded it on The Arabic wikipedia and released it under Public domain. In fact this was not the only reason, the other reason was because when that user uploaded it at first it had a high resolution which really made me think that it was his/her work. This high resolution was lost when I copied that image into a file in my computer in order to upload it on Wikicommons --Aziz100517:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason not to presume that ar:User:Yaminajrani took this image himself. Based on his username, it seems he's from Najran, where the image was taken. Meno25, do you have any reason to suspect that the image was a copyright violation from somewhere? BTW, I've uploaded the full-resolution version. Lupo12:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is another problem in this image, sir. The original uploader didn't specify a license for it. Another arwiki user tagged it as PD, then it was uploaded to commons as PD, so I guess that assuming that it is PD and the uploader is the author is too much. --Meno2515:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I see now that he isn't. Apparently this image (meanwhile deleted at ar-WP) was about his only contribution there. Lupo20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Majorly: In category Unknown as of 18 December 2007, missing source/license/permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am dionysius525, i have fixed the problems with all of my uploaded photos and am sorry for the inconvienence they have caused you. You were right about the photos and the problems have been fixed. i am confident that with moderarors like you, the high quality standards promoted by wikipedia can be upheld.
Deleted. Even though the source has been specified, there is no indication whatsoever that the image would be freely licensed. (And “made available on his website” is really not enough.) Mormegil20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fixed request. Not sure what the reason is that IP nominated the image, but unless the people in the picture are famous or something, I (also) don't understand why File Upload Bot uploaded it. Deadstar (msg) 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - «Farmhouses in Germany» will be a too large and undifferentiatied cat. in the future. Hesse is a country with 5 mill. inhabitants, a fairly large agricultural sector and agricultural traditions. Mahlum08:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already the subcategories Category:Fachhallenhaus and Category: Gulfhaus. A sub-Category:Schwarzwaldhaus could be good. I've just introduced it. You can help me to find more hidden photos of real Black forest houses (not the Stuttgart ones). Other subcategories for special types of houses can be introduced, if the Category:Farmhouses in Germany should contain more than 100-200 pictures. But they will hardly be found, if they are not listed in the Category:Farmhouses in Germany as a subcategory of Category:Farmhouses by country. If all photos of tradidtional farmhouses in Wikimedia are listed this way, any wikipedian can use the survey of them. This can be a help, not only for illustrating, but even for writing.
If subcategories of Category:Farmhouses in Germany are introduced, they should rather emphasize the types than the Bundesländer. Traditional farmhouses of the same type as in Hesse exist also in Thuringia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, the South of Lower Saxony, the Southeast of NRW. Schleswig-Holstein has at least four types of farmhouses, and they exist in neighbouring countries, too.
I have just deleted Category:Farms in Hesse as it was empty, and there are no similar categories for other parts of Germany. Maybe that can be introduced at a later stage.
The farms / farmhouses discussion is going on at Category talk:Farmhouses by country where it is proposed to change every "farmhouses in" to "farms in". As far as I can see, "Farmhouses in" should be a subcategory of "Farms in", where "Farms" can hold all those things to do with farms, but not necessarily are a "house" (ie stables, piles of hay, cows in sheds etc.). I will add this to the category talk page.
I think this deletion request can now be closed, and a discussion on the renaming can go on perhaps on the above mentioned category talk page. I will leave it to another admin to close. Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This file is surely not under GFDl as it seems to be quite old. On the French Wikipedia there is also no information given on the source nor on the author. ALE! ¿…?16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice to have them as a djvu, but that's no reason to delete the jpgs, which are still a more accessible format for many. Lupo16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice to have them as a djvu, but that's no reason to delete the jpgs, which are still a more accessible format for many. Lupo16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice to have them as a djvu, but that's no reason to delete the jpgs, which are still a more accessible format for many. Lupo16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice to have them as a djvu, but that's no reason to delete the jpgs, which are still a more accessible format for many. Lupo16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source given; NSD tag is hotly contested, so I'm bringing all these images here. My argument is that a) commons requires a source to be given because of COM:L and b) it's impossible to know if this conforms to PD-ART, especially given that some of these images appear to be European, and pd-art is not allowed in many European countries (France in particular, is questionable). Patstuart19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, it would have been better if Patstuart had proposed one collective deletion nomination for all six or seven images which he recently nominated for deletion (as I previously requested on his user talk page), since the issues involved with all the images are much the same, and it would have been nice to have one relatively centralized place to discuss these issues. [Now done.]
As far as the substantive merits of the deletion proposal, while it's obviously desirable for all images to be properly sourced, in my opinion it accomplishes very little to rigidly uniformly insist on this for images whose visual content is clearly pre-20th-century and 2-dimensional, where a "PD-old" or "PD-art" license is claimed. If there's something suspicious about any particular image, then the burden of proof is certainly on the uploader to show that that image is legitimate. However, if a pre-20th-century 2D image does not seem fishy, then I see no real advantage to be gained by deleting it on purely formalistic grounds -- this will probably just encourage further lying among dishonest uploaders, and discourage honest uploaders from uploading at all, without achieving anything particularly substantively worthwhile with respect to copyright enforcement. Furthermore, there are many many thousands of scans of pre-20th-century 2D images currently on Wikimedia Commons without formal source indications, and the de facto customary practice here has been that if nothing about a pre-20th-century 2D image raises particular cause for suspicion, then the image will usually not be deleted just for lacking a formal source indication. Therefore if we're going to change course and conduct a major historical image purge, then this should only be done as a result of a clearly authoritative policy adopted after considered discussions (and not merely because of personal speculations on the content of Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag). -- User:AnonMoos20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteImage:A0000d70.jpg because (a) utterly nondescript file name, and (b) a better reproduction is available at Boston College. So I suggest to delete Image:A0000d70.jpg and upload the image from the Boston college instead (with a better name!). Now, sources are important even for reproductions of PD paintings for two reasons: first, a source gives other people a chance to verify that the painting indeed is the one that it is claimed to be (en:Wikipedia:Verifiability ...), and second, {{PD-Art}} indeed cannot be applied indiscriminately to photographic reproductions from anywhere. France may be problematic, and the Nordic countries definitely have a problem. So, it depends where from the uploader got the reproduction. In the case of this image, the original is at the National Gallery in Washington, DC, and the suggested better reproduction is hosted at the Boston College, so we may safely assume that the U.S. Bridgeman ruling applies. And there's no need to use this pale image, which incidentally appears to come from the National Gallery itself,[57] and thus also would be fine copyright-wise. Lupo21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (No comment on the other images alluded to—they're not listed, and I'm too tired to go hunting for them.) —the preceding unsigned comment was added byLupo (talk • contribs) [reply]
I'm no advocate for the greatness of this particular image -- and if it can be replaced with a better one with fewer potential problems, then by all means then let's replace it. However, those who advocate deleting pre-20th-century 2D images solely and exclusively because electronic paperwork forms have not been filled out according to the proper bureaucratic procedures should solidly face up to the fact that many many thousands of such images already on Wikimedia Commons have such problems, and that pre-20th-century 2D images have generally not been deleted on such grounds in the past (unless there were further problems or particular grounds for suspicion). So far, Patstuart has been conspicuously avoiding dealing with this whole subject... AnonMoos00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced images are a big problem around here. I would be reluctant to make special rules for "obviously PD-old" images because (a) everybody has his own conception of what is "obviously" PD, and (b) as I pointed out above, the origin of the reproduction (not of the painting) is a factor to consider, too. Why not just supply the missing bit? In this case, setting the source to "National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. See [58]." would have solved the problem. (And that URL wasn't hard to find at all.) Anyway, I've uploaded the Boston College version as Image:Jean-Honoré Fragonard - Visite à la nourrice.jpg. Lupo11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, it's sufficient for those who have some knowledge about the subject-matter of the image to make a determination. If knowledgeable people disagree, or if there's some cause for active suspicion, then the image should certainly be nominated for deletion on grounds of incorrect copyright tagging -- but the works of Fragonard are rather obviously PD-old. AnonMoos15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if uploader states two days after upload that the license is wrong, then it is quite possibly a copyright violation, and even if it were self-taken, it's polite to delete an image immediately after upload that's unused. Patstuart (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many French aircraft went to Argentina in the 1920s. Nothing surprising here. However some more information is needed: who is the photographer, source and precise date. Yann19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image of a Bank of Japan banknote that, in Japan, is not regarded as a copyrighted material. Therefore, there is no reason for delation. And furthermore, this low-resolution & modified version of image is not helpful for counterfeit. エクリプス14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear from the license template, since currency in general is not ineligble for copyright, it depends on the laws of the country. The images should use a template that more specifically says why they are PD and citing Japanese copyright laws. Maybe something similar to Template:PD-Switzerland-official. It would also be good to add a section to Commons:Currency about Japan. /81.231.248.3616:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From Commons:LicensingAccording to the Japanese Copyright Law, the copyright subsists for the life of the author plus 50 years (article 51). If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous, the copyright lasts for 50 years after the publication or the death of the author, whichever is the earlier (article 52). The copyrights of the works in names of organizations expire in 50 years after the publication, or in 50 years after the creation if the works are not published within 50 years after the creation (article 53). From the image description: Series B 50 yen banknote. Portrait: Korekiyo Takahashi. First issued in 1951, issue suspended in 1958. Thus keep as {{PD-Japan}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader claims the image to be self created, but I, User:Lindsey8417, am the creator of the image, and would like this to be deleted. It is claiming my work as their own. The image here is a duplicate of an old version of an image I originally uploaded here --Lindsey841700:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until otherwise noted, the image of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) from the movie Full Metal Jacket is copyrighted and not free licensable. 32X00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise Commons does not have an equivalent of the English Wikipedia's en:WP:BLP policy but I'm not sure this falls under project scope. There is a fine line between parody and offensiveness IMO. Not sure it reflects well upon Commons to host this image. ~ Riana ⁂06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — aw, c'mon. He looks damn fine with the 'stash. You people have no sense of humor. Remover, no matter how funny he looks :-) --Boricuæddie22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
grins Just in case Eddie is worried about my sense of humour, it's thriving, thank you! I'm even pretty anti-Bush. I just don't think this image is appropriate. ~ Riana ⁂00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least where I am from in an English-speaking country, "child-like" generally means "as a child", whereas "childish" generally means "immature". --Iamunknown19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was a photo of a public Bush election campaign poster that had been defaced, or a published cartoon I would say keep (assuming no copyright probs), but as it is, it is basically original art work, and unless the artist is notable, it would appear to be out of project scope. I don't see BLP is relevant, nor think it reflects badly on commons (is that even a relevant reason for censorship?), nor do I have a problem if it offends some people (you can always find someone who is offended by any particular thing!). --Tony Wills08:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French artist Paul Émile Chabas died in 1937, not quite 70 years after death -- will that be next year it will be copyright expired by French law? In any case are we jumping the gun a bit by moving it from en:Wikipedia to Commons now? --Infrogmation13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that depends on whether the French war-time extension apply in addition to the extension to 70 years or whether the extension to 70 years superseded the older war-time extensions. I thought the consensus here was that the latter was the case, i.e., that plain 70 years applies. And yes, even if so, we'd be jumping the gun a bit. Lupo15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the EU copyright term of 70 years expires on December 31, 2007, so from January 1, 2008 on, there'd be no copyright on the painting in the EU. In the U.S., things may be different, depending on whether the painting was considered published and if so, when and where. But we generally ignore that latter problem for non-US authors anyway. But beware of the (non-)applicability of {{PD-Art}} for reproductions from the UK... Why did you think it might take another year? Lupo15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well, there seems consensus that the image is not quite yet public domain -- meaning at present, it is not PD, so I'm going ahead and deleting it per policy. Note the source of the image is here if someone wishes to re-upload it after the new year. -- Infrogmation01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this user routinely travels around the world in a blimp taking pictures of stadiums, I have my severe doubts that these are self-taken. User has previously had uploads deleted as copyvios. We in fact might want to delete all this user's other uploads marked as pd-self, given that he's shown himself a serial copyright violator. What's more, the shields called pd-self need to receive a proper license (shields in some countries aren't free, and in the one's they are, this needs to be properly indicated). Patstuart23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand the description, the uploader claims that the photographer has agreed his image can be used on websites (in generenal). However, I doubt whether he was informed about under which license the picture would have to be uploaded with in wikipedia and since he appears to be a professional photographer I can't imagine he would agree with a cc-by-sa license. There should be some OTRS confirmation anyways since the uploader has a bad record of copyios. Same applies to all the other pictures in category:Eduard Geyer --141.30.94.3719:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsability to bring the proof that you have the permission to publish this picture under this license.
If the text in the picture page is the permission from the author ("What do you want? If it therefore goes using one of my pictures on another side site then gives I the agreement under the condition a source proof and a linking for me!.) then:
It is not sufficient: any use may be allowed, including modification and commercial use.
Author doesn't agree with the license CC-by-SA that you put with the picture
Above all, you must send a copy of the mail you received to the OTRS. If you have no written permission, then this text is not valid and you have to ask again by mail (use one of these Commons:Emailvorlagen).
Deleted It seems that the uploader is not willing or not able to forward the original permission to OTRS system. No indication that the photograper allows commercial use and derivative works. --GeorgHH • talk21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been marked as "copyvio". I disagree with this and would like to see some debate about it, before it is deleted. It would be interesting to see what the law says about 10-year old mural paintings for advertisement in Haiti. le Korrigan→bla08:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The signature at the bottom is dated "2005", what is the 10 year old part? The photo is certainly derivative of the mural-- is this allowed by law of Haiti? We don't seem to have any information for Haiti at Commons:Freedom of panorama. -- Infrogmation13:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woops I was thinking at another photo when I wrote "10 years"! Sorry. I don't know anything more about FOP in Haiti, even "normal" copyright laws may be hard to find. le Korrigan→bla13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about FOP either, but Haiti is a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1995. Some info is given by Willems Edouard: Haiti : Droit d'auteur et propriété intellectuelle, web publication, May 30, 2002 (in French). Neither CLEA nor UNESCO have the text of the decree from 9 January 1968, nor any earlier or later copyright laws of Haiti. Lupo16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnlike the Daniel's tomb photo this one is of the painting, there is little else included. So any Freedom Of Panorama rules that might allow the inclusion of incidental artworks in a picture of something else can't apply. The painting is a 2-dimensional graphic work, so FOP rules that might allow pictures of sculptures and artistic craftsmanship can't apply. The painting is modern: there is no reason to think the painter is even dead yet. The painting is copyrighted, no reason is given to suspect it is not (having to register copyrights is a now-defunct US peculiarity). No permission from the painter is indicated. Therefore - derivative work of copyrighted image without permission - copyright violation. --Simonxag19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the Flickr uploader is the author of the image. His other Flickr uploads ([59]) include other obvious copyright violations. RedCoat18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image but only because i saw the license on the page as attribution creative commons v2.0. I feel we should let it be for a while before we jump to conclusions. However, i'm new to image uploading on wiki so if it was copyright violation i would like to know that it was unintentional.Gprince00710:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly the ancient coins themselves have no copyright. Good question as to how photographs of them should be handled and tagged. -- Infrogmation13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the original uploader. The images were found at this site. I uploaded them, since the coins are obviously PD, and since the photographs don't pass the threshold of originality, they are not copyrightable as per U.S. court decision Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Wikicommons is based in the U.S., but it's supposed to be for images that can be used by anyone, but I would expect that copyright policies elsewhere in the world would be similar, so I'm not sure how this changes the issue. — Yom22:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.." does not cover photos of 3d objects. But maybe someone is more sure about that. --ALE! ¿…?09:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No ticket about copyright holder allowing upload on Commons, I can't believe Dolce e Gabbana allowed to use a picture of theirs for "any use, including a commercial use". --User:G.dallorto21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is made by S. Rellandini. He has asked permission and have get it. So Dolce e Gabbana allowed to use the picture of theirs for "any use, including a commercial use. (auf Anfrage als Public Domain freigegeben). So I see no problem to keep it.Rasbak06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a fly belonging to Anthomyzidae. It is Clusiodes albimanus (Meigen) (originally Heteroneura albimana Meigen) a member of the Clusiidae. 198.103.93.19422:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Kali the Dark.PNG traces its source to Photobucket, author Erkadio year 2007
action=view¤t=KalitheDark.png and is licensed under CC-BY-2.0. But an editor at en WP found this link[60] which says that the work was created by artist Todd lockwood in 2005 and is copyrighted. Note that the right bottom part of the original with the artist' sign (version from his site) is clipped out in the version in WP commons image. This indicates maybe a false license. Thus i urge this image be deleted.----Redtigerxyz05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. The member who uploaded this image is no longer actively registered with Wikimedia Commons. Please be advised that I contacted the artist, Todd Lockwood, today, and asked for his position on this debate. I would suggest that no further action be taken until Mr. Lockwood weighs in with his opinion. (Devi bhakta14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The artist speaks:
Thanks for writing.
This is a very clear case of copyright violation. I did not give permission for this piece to be uploaded, and I certainly did not give permission for my signature to be deleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image has completely different information in the Metadata:
(Municipal Bath House Number 6, 1120 Saint Louis Avenue. September 26th, 2006. Photograph by Cary Horton, 2006. Photograph and scan (c) 2006, Missouri Historical Society.)
than it has in the information template
(Picture of Admissions Building at Donald J. Nguyen University in Quagsack, Maine. Source Original photo. Date November, 2005. Author Albert Phangus.)
This is the logo of the organization. Why do you want to delete it?
I am allowed to use it, cause i'm in the managment of roterkeil.net! -- joewe 08:50, 15 November 2007
User has several other uploads improperly marked self-made (e.g., a painting by one author, one that I specifically found a copyvio on. This image is a likely copyvio. Este usuario tiene otros imagenes subidos etiqetados incorrectamente como propios (e.g., una pintura). Patstuart17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted 20 December 2007 User:Kameraad Pjotr deleted "Image:Empresas universitarias.jpg" (In category Unknown as of 15 November 2007; no permission)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I may be wrong, but from my reading of the Slovak page, this is an old photo, possibly from the Velvet Revolution. I heavily doubt the uploader is the author. Patstuart19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It looks like scan for the book and author tought that scan makes him copyright holder. Yes, strange, but very usual situation. Herr Kriss01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd and 3rd versions are what look like "official" images for this vodka - if not, they should have been uploaded under a different name. Deadstar (msg) 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The ESA Portal Multimedia Gallery contains images and videos used throughout the ESA Portal. The images are offered in the Gallery in :the highest resolution available.
Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes.
Keep due to the reasons listed above. The image serves a purpose in the articles it is present in, and does not appear to be a copyvio. --69.47.187.7112:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes [...] on the following conditions:
"Credit ESA as the source of the images. Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO
"ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
"[...] Some images contained in this Gallery have come from other sources, and this is indicated in the Copyright notice."
We have to change the copyright notice to credit ESA, not NASA, and we must not use the image in a way that makes it seem like ESA is sponsoring Wikimedia. Simple. (Also, the image we've got is not the full resolution one, it's downsized and very poorly compressed. We ought to upload the original once this deletion request is over.) w:User:Hymyly17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Definitely not PD. Even before reopening it, the information was already present on this page. ESA was requiring attribution, that in itself, makes it not PD. Rocket00006:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Educational use only. {{Noncommercial}}. No explicit allowance for publication of modified works. Definitely not in the public domain and definitely not freely licensed. I have previously speedied other ESA images. —LX (talk, contribs)08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question OK to use on wikipedia? If so can they be urgently transferred there given this (and perhaps others) are extensively used? --Tony Wills19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be OK under Fair use supporting wikipedia's. And indeed would be good idea to make sure they are there. Actually, i think i just got these dupes deleted from en. the other week. :D TheDJ19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note however, that most wikipedia's will also have non-copyrighted NASA pictures of Columbus now, so there is little point in using these drawings anywhere. Except for those of ATV. TheDJ19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems I made a mistake above. I think I only read as far as "The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions: " and then the three criterias which were all OK for Commons. / FredJ21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning Image:Atv.jpg: This particular image is available from a NASA source (http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/ss/4/5.cfm) and has no copyright or credit notice attached to it. As such it falls under NASA's copyright policy ("This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted") as being a free image. Since Wikipedia and Commons consider NASA "free" material to be non-copyrighted and PD, Image:Atv.jpg is to be considered to be a PD image.Dutchsatellites11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This being your opinion on it I suggest you start tagging lot's of other images on Commons for deletion. There are numerous images here residing under the PD-USGov-NASA license that have origins outside NASA. If the current image is deleted because it falls outside the "NASA license", than many other images on Commons must have the same fate.Dutchsatellites14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever those images are located by me, I will put them up for deletion yes. But this is not a "vendetta" or anything. It's just what GeorgeHH and later I have found by working on articles. TheDJ14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something we should consider looking up is if these "restrictions" are license restrictions, or if they are separate restrictions which are enforced trough some sort of EU law. I say this because basically the same restrictions apply for NASA images, but with NASA images these restrictions are not part of the license, but defined in a seperate law much like Trademarks are. And even though the result for the average user is the same, we handle these kinds of images very different on commons. See also recent discussion here: Commons:Village pump#Astronaut photo's and mission emblemsTheDJ12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at this user's other uploads, I think they are not a painter but rather somebody who has yet to learn about copyright. --Simonxag17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remover — per nom. I was thinking of contacting the user to see if he could fix the licensing info, but (s)he appears to be inactive. --Boricuæddie22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need information re: the sculptor, otherwise the images should be deleted, since the statue looks rather recent, and FOP in the Usa does not cover statues, just buildings. --User:G.dallorto15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like someone is trying to promote their restaurant. It is not used anywhere, and I can't see an alternative use for this image. (include talkpage when deleting)Deadstar (msg) 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject died in 1877, at age 76, though in this she looks younger than that. Minimum age for photo 130 years. Photographer anonymous? --Simonxag10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a source to verify that this is indeed Amalie Auguste von Bayern as stated by the uploader. Without a source it's useless for encyclopedic articles. --91.65.124.3401:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a look around for this image, but have not been able to determine the source, nor have I been able to confirm that this is indeed Amalie von Bayern. Deadstar (msg) 09:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in cases like these simply put a "author unknown", which would be the truth for the moment until authorship can be established at a later point. But I would say image looks safe enough to be PD. Gryffindor08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the question of it actually depicts the person claimed. "Sa diffusion est libre pour les programmes éducatifs et les usages non commerciaux, sous condition de citer l'auteur." Educational and non commercial use = not free enough for Commons. -- Infrogmation23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It states "Original by Alfredo Méndez" - and that a particular publication does not specify copyright doesn't mean there isn't any. Deadstar (msg) 11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source given for photo and the (long) text reads like selfpromotion. No info on nl: wiki about this cameraman. The uploader has the same text on his talkpage here and on nl:wiki, no other info on him (or the subject of the photo) there. Deadstar (msg) 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When checking name in Dutch Chamber of Commerce we found out that Paolo de Graaff is a real existing Dutch cameraman. Also checked at several broadcast stations in Holland and other video facility companies. 20:54, 24 November 2007 User:Mediafx
This is a vandalism-only image without a source and to which the uploader likely does not own the rights. Currently used only in Mom jeans on the English Wikipedia with questionable purpose. Cumulus Clouds04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The building is clearly copyrighted (architect died only in 1979), but in my opinion there is no original creation in this series of square pillars, so perhpas this images could stay. What is your opinion? --User:G.dallorto02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: even if the building in its whole is under copyright, I think that picture depicts a columnade, not the building itself (actually the building cannot be recognised from the columns only) and should be kept as an exemple of modern column architecture. -- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar)17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia image is first tagged PD-self then the uploader there said actually made by someone else not releasing copyright. Need comments. Jusjih04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Unless, uploader is themself a church leader or notable theologian, this is just an expression of personal religious opinion and as a text document, really out of place. --Simonxag14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be CC-By and to be copied from Flickr, and while the latter is true and the image is claimed under that license there, it says here "promo photo", and looks like an official shot. The Flickr user in question has lots of images in their account that all appear to be incorrectly claiming CC-By. I believe that the flickr user does not own the rights to this photo and cannot license it to us under a free license; thus, as an image we could only use as fair use, we should not have this on Commons. I believe that this user's other contributions to Commons should be checked as well. --Morven10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of what is written on the above are personal opinion. It isn't explanation at all. I cannot understand what he want to say. Give clear evidence that this image is copy violation. It's rude of to attach a delete tag for his selfish supposition without source. At least show a reason, not strange guess. Thirdship10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the Flickr user's photos here. Look at the kinds of things this person is claiming are theirs to license cc-by. They include multiple Doctor Who logos from the BBC, album covers, and all kinds of pictures that are clearly not there by permission. I can see no reason to believe the CC-By claim on their pictures; there is no proof of ownership and no provenance on any of them.
Most likely, this user has simply selected CC-By as their default license and everything they upload, whether they own it or not, is being so tagged. Morven11:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That Flickr user has obviously put that licence tag falsely on many images from a variety of sources which the user has no rights to licence. -- Infrogmation12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I found it on the web, however the creater gives me use. I don't know who the author is, but I need it to improve an article. So, I'm stating it as free license." Erm, yes, it doesn't actually work that way. Delete as no valid license. Deadstar (msg) 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation, which User Kamui99 / Kamui Sendoh on Flickr has been accused of before, see COM:QFI.
Specifically, this is a clipped version of the image given in reduced form here which, if I can read the Norwegian correctly, seems to be attributed to Øyvind Nordahl Næss. User Kamui Sendoh on Flickr shows no sign of being Øyvind Nordahl Næss (on his Flickr user page, he says "I'm a Guy from Monterrey Nuevo León Mexico"); the same day he uploaded that picture to flickr, he uploaded pictures taken with different cameras [66][67] different years [68] and in different countries [69] and in this discussion, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007May#User:Kamui99_images was rather convincingly accused of playing fast and loose with copyrights before. AnonEMouse13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I found Mr. Ness. [70] Yes, he is a Norwegian photojournalist, and no, he does not live in Monterey Mexico. And here is another magazine printing the same photo, crediting Ness, this time even cropped the same way as Kamui's. [71] --AnonEMouse13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fraudulent by the Flickr user. We need a "bad Flickr user" list so that FlickreviewR is able to spot such uploads. --Kjetil r14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm sure you're right that it's fraudulent. Maybe I should've caught it before uploading it. I try to weed out any obviously fraudulent ones when taking pictures from Flickr, but it seems that I missed it on this one. Galar7112:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note: Majority of the uploader's images have already been deleted as identified problems; uploader not active since March. -- Infrogmation02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
probably scanned - uploaded by user already known for uploading copyrighted material and make false self-attributions —the preceding unsigned comment was added byMartingala (talk • contribs)
Image can be found here. It's clearly not self-made, and though it can be retrieved from a website by the U.S. federal government, it's credited to Reuters. Therefore, it's a nonfree image. 70.112.5.22023:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attended that awards ceremony on July 17, 2007 and took a photo very similar to this one. I found this one on a US Government website and it proved to be better than mine (as mine is slightly out of focus and a little dark); I uploaded it as my own without noticing the reuters copyright I see now (as my eyes are old). I appologize. Happyme2201:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images below are released with the following text on their description page:
Subject: Re: Wikipedia photo for the Beastie Boys
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:05:38 -0400
From: dave tobin <dave@nastylittleman.com>
To: Kim Scarborough <sluggo@unknown.nu>
Hey Kim,
Good to hear from you, we have general use press images available on our website that can be published with no strings attached. Just scroll down the page.
To me, this does not necessarily mean "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification". A few questions have been raised with the uploader on their talkpage, but as far as I can see, no decisive action has been taken to get this sorted. Therefore nominating all images as licensing is unclear, also (as was noted on user's talkpage) because some of the images might have been copyrighted by other people besides "Dave" (ie covers of records). On the webpage, the photos are actually credited to different photographers.
"Authorize for use in or pertaining to any webpage, article, or other literary work which pertains to Stann." Licensing not suitable for Commons. Deadstar (msg) 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search here (search for "hitler", direct link to search result page wouldn't last long enough because it uses session IDs) shows that the image was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957. So his photos become PD on January 1st 2028. --91.65.124.7400:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need for "evidence". The picture, is clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. But if you want "evidence", do some Google search and try to find more information on this picture. Until then, this is clearly abuse of deletion requests. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
*ugh*... clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. No it doesn't! Images only become PD 70 years after the author's death in Germany. And it seems you haven't read my comment above, which clearly states the author of the image, his date of death and the reason why this image can't be PD according to copyright law. --91.65.124.7420:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Can't find any proof of your claims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 08 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Go to this site, enter "Hitler, Adolf" in the search field, select "Fotoarchiv Hoffmann" as the database on the right side of the page, click search, wait for the search results, then go to the page with images #201-250. Click on the photo and you will see that this image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. This is the page, but I don't know if the link will work for everybody due to the use of session IDs. --91.65.124.7414:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no proof of this being a copyvio. It sure seems to be more like speculations than actual copyvio. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Then I would really suggest reading a bit about (international) copyright laws before you continue to contribute to this project. Author is not yet dead for 70 years → photo is therefore not in the public domain → we don't have any permission from his heirs → claiming this photo is PD = copyright violation. --91.65.124.7422:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you get. I still cannot see that this picture is taken by _someone_ and that it's not available as PD. I couldn't find anything when I searched that site you provided. I see no case of copyvio so far. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:38 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, it is a Heinrich Hoffmann image. German postcard.[72] Following the instructions given above, it's the 232nd image in the search results using the advanced search on the Hoffmann collection. Searching for "Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler", it's the ninth result. Lupo08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As the tag on the source image at en points out, "This image is in the public domain in the United States but is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN." William Avery12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. We definitely need a PD-US-only tag over at en-WP. It needs to say in big capital bold flashing letters (and accompanied by a police officer-type voice speaking the text) "Do not copy this file to the Commons before 70 years since the author's death have passed." Lupo15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conditions, specified in the author section, require attribution to be superimposed on the image. So image is not completely freely modifiable. So not freely licensed. --Simonxag14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compatibale with 2.5 CC Licence which states that you can reuse and remix the image as long as you make the attribution as specified by the author. You can modify, you just have to attribute (which shouldn't be a problem, actually someone spent time creating this. Why shouldn't he get credit.)--Rutz15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author (who actually has the copyright) specifies "Attribution must appear super-imposed on the image itself, fully legible when at the full published resolution". The image is not freely modifiable. The uploader has added a CC license but that's not worth the paper it's written on (& it's not written on paper!). --Simonxag03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license says that, but the author says something else. Insisting that an image must have attribution superimposed prohibits certain modifications. In fact even the version here seems to be breaking that condition.
Comment The author of course retains the copyright, however, he also publicly declared it's licensed under CC-BY-2.5, which is irrevocable. People falsely claim rights they don't have all the time, I would stick with what the license says. We have some pictures where the author claims all rights reserved, it's just we got them before the author changed his mind about CC. It stems from a misunderstanding of what these licenses actually mean. He publicly gave up these rights. Attribution is required but that's it. The internet's better than having it in writing, there's records and witnesses everywhere. :) Rocket00000:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a logo created by Wikipedians for their userpages to show they like playing the game "Counterstrike". (Used on loads of pages.) There is no indication that it is derived from any copyrighted material. --Simonxag14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking very carefully at the 2, I can see that this has not been mechanically derived from the original image. The pose is slightly different and there are some other differences of detail. Also the surrounding circle is missing. But in context it looks awfully like another artists copy of the original copyrighted drawing. --Simonxag23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dublicate of image:Phenethyl alcohol.png, I mucked up trying to get that into the note up the top because it kept trying to display the picture. These are two structure drawing that represent the same molecule. They were created using synonyms of the chemical name so I uploaded one of them after a duplicate already existed. This one up for deletion is the one I uploaded. 61.69.252.18200:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 39 Steps was a British production, and was first released in Britain. Might be PD in the U.S. because it didn't follow copyright formalities, but that shouldn't make it PD in its source country. --Davepape03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded these images in good faith in the belief that they, and the film from which they originate, are in the public domain, but I understand that I could be wrong, so I would like to discuss it. I've found this link to Internet Archive which seems to be a more "above-board" site for public domain material, than many. It states that the Creative Commons Licence for this film is public domain. This assertion links to another page which offers a general policy section, which makes reference to material being public domain in "the country in which the work is published" (based on United States law), so while it does not says that it is specifically public domain in the United Kingdom, this phrase tends to support it. Do you know what actually happened with this film in terms of not following copyright formalities as I would be interested to know what took place. I'll add this link to the image pages because I think this is a stronger source site than those listed, but in doing so, I understand that it doesn't prove their public domain status. thanks Rossrs09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on what basis do you think it's copyvio? It doesn't help rectify this situation by making an unsupported statement as if this is something to be voted on, as it gives no avenue to try to investigate further. Naturally, I won't waste my time trying to support the use of these images if any credible evidence can be given that they are not in the public domain, but so far I have offered more to support the claim that they are in the public domain than anyone has that they are not. Rossrs09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally; I see no reason not to assume good faith upload on your part and I don't see that anyone else is. The problem is that they're tagged as USA copyright expired, but it is a British film, and Commons goes by copyright status in country of origin. -- Infrogmation16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reply to me above, I don't take it personally - I've been participating on Wikipedia for a long time but I was indicating my willingness to take part in discussion to try to work through the problem, rather than counting votes, which doesn't necessarily achieve the right result. I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate that you've explained your viewpoint, but could you please look at the link I provided above which notes it as being public domain "in the country in which the work is published". I interpret that to mean the UK, only because it doesn't say otherwise, and also because it does not specifically define the public domain status as USA only. I can't find anything elsewhere to say that this is not the case. I'm not sure exactly what degree of evidence is acceptable here. If the link to Internet Archive is acceptable, does it then follow that the tag is the issue because it asserts freedom of USA copyright, rather than the images themselves being the problem? Rossrs02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand, I personally don't know enough about archive.org to say if their statement "public domain" means in country of origin (can someone else shed light on this?), but I can say that at least part of the problem is indeed putting "PD-US" tags on a non-US work. -- Infrogmation02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - I thought it was part of the problem but I can't find an equivalent UK tag. Do you know what should have been used on these images? Looking back at Davepape's original nomination here, I'm thinking that may have been what attracted his attention, and it's proceeded from there. On internet.org's Creative Commons Dedication page it says, in part, "the work of authorship identified is in the public domain of the country from which the work is published". In my opinion there is nothing ambiguous in this statement, and by linking The 39 Steps to this statement it is saying it's public domain in it's original country, but the question is - do we accept it? Rossrs11:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait - now I see. Country "published" does not necessarily mean country first published. So it may not mean UK at all. Sorry, I was completely misinterpreting it. Well, like you said, someone else may be able to shed light. Thanks Infrogmation. Rossrs11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what got my attention was knowing that movie trailer images are uploaded here based on the registration technicality of U.S. law, which didn't quite apply in this case. I'd be curious to know what sort of oversight mechanism archive.org uses for copyright issues - some active review system, or a more passive wait-for-complaints method. It would be nice if we could rely on them as a reference for PD status, but from what you've said it sounds too ambiguous. --Davepape19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Under the circumstances, I'd be quite happy to see these images deleted (unless someone else can come up with better evidence than I've been able to). I think they're reliable for U.S. created images as they relate their guideline page back to U.S. law, but for images created outside the U.S., they're not clear. Rossrs01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. I am aware of that case and indeed the PD status applies worldwide if adding the copyright notice was forgotten, so the pictures taken from it (not in any way by me) are per definition ok as well for our use. --Gwyndon03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The PD status applies worldwide ..." might be true for U.S. works, but U.S. law cannot change the copyright status in a foreign country of a non-U.S. work. --Davepape05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an image from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h71000/h71342c.htm and http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.html says: "All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." We don't know why the US Navy thinks the information is in the public domain, but they say it is. It actually isn't ridiculous that it was taken by an employee of the US Navy (though he probably would have been a spy rather than a sailor as such); if you were in the US Navy at the time, you would probably have given a fair bit for a good photo of an enemy warship, especially one that told you where it was at a specific time. Or it could be because it was captured from a Nazi photo archive and the US doesn't respect Nazi copyright, we don't know, but I would tend to take the US Navy's word for it. We should probably just change the license from the boilerplate "sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy" to "public domain because the US Navy says so", but that should be good enough too. --AnonEMouse22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "spy" bit is guesswork, too, and confiscated photos may well be PD in the U.S., but that doesn't make them PD anywhere else. Upload locally at en-WP. Lupo06:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Lupo; it's quite likely that this image is indeed PD in the United States as a confiscated property from WW2; however, I suspect that it is categorically not PD elsewhere in the world, since US laws seizing property after the war are not likely to be valid or accepted elsewhere. Some other nations may have similar laws, but we can't interpret this in a generic fashion. Morven23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! It's an old foto and we need an illustration for the articel.
??? We need it? I need money, can I take yours?
Keep - until someone claims it, for historical purposes, it's better served as illustration of the "pocket battleship" class and a part of WWII than in the digital dust bin. That it "may not" be in the PD is just as speculative as the premise that it could have been a spy who took the photo.
If it depends on speculation, there is no valid licence.
Date on template says 2007, date on photo says 1998. No META data. Image is used (in smaller size) on the website mentioned, but cannot find this large size online, so perhaps uploader is creator (Mike Potts is named as the Technical and Projects Director. [73]) Image only used to advertise (in the image on user's en: page).Deadstar (msg) 10:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is one of two images found by search 'bulk carrier coal'. The commercial argument is weak- how many players are in this market, they are hardly 'Macdo' or 'Microsplodge'. ClemRutter21:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. It's entirely plausible that the uploader is, in fact, from the company in question (given the tl;dr appended to it, which anyone is welcome to edit out if they please, this just makes it more so). You wouldn't expect metadata on this photo: it's from 1998, before widespread introduction of digital cameras. Ergo, it would have been a scanned photo; any EXIF information would be meaningless crap like what scanner it was scanned in with (and depending on the software he used to scan it in, this would be lost too). The erroneous date can be attributed to uploader confusion.
Maybe his motives weren't exactly selfless in uploading this. Maybe, indeed, he just wanted to advertise his crane (or whatever it is). It is still a useful photo of a certain kind of machinery. For this reason, it can stay. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From what I can read, the image needs to be credited. The GDFL that is attached doesn't mention that condition + I think the permission should be clearer regarding commercial use etc. + sent to OTRS for it to be valid here. Deadstar (msg) 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I talked over phone with the photographer, Hector Monta, who lives in my town: Mexico City. He himself sent me the photo for the specific purpose of publishing it in Wikipedia. The only condition he stated was that his name may be attached to the photo. Should I tell him that he sends an email directly to Commons?
Please contact me again thru email if there is any problem.
Anything else you need, please leave me a note here or in my en:wiki talk page (or to the es:wiki talk page, where the image also appears in two articles). The author of the image was very explicit of handing me this photo for Wikipeida. I may try to contact him again if necessary. —Cesar Tort22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago I phoned Hector Montaño. He agreed again about permission. He likes that his name appears in WP photos. But I've to convince him to take the trouble to send an email. Tomorrow I'll phone him again. If that doesn't work, I guess that I'll have to go personally to INAH! —Cesar Tort23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today I telephoned him again. He said he'd write an email to permissions-en@wikimedia[dot]org. If you or to whom may correspond don't receive it, please leave me a note here or alternatively email me. —Cesar Tort19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Backlogs suck. If you ever get confirmation that he's sent an email to OTRS, leave me a note (better yet, have him email me; g1ggyman@gmail.com, when he emails OTRS) and I can undelete. giggy(:O)04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nomination. I have uploaded this image as a pre-1923 symbol, and any copyright it has will have expired. However, according to w:trademark, there is a difference between a copyright and a trademark, and at the moment, I have absolutely no clue if this image should be allowed here. I request discussion from people with more expertise than I to comment. Thanks. Patstuart00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I had one response here from Lar. My reading is that the only thing about a trademark is that it can't be used to establish a similar trademark of your own so that two logos, texts, or other similar trademarks would be "confusingly similar". And yet, I believe this image is more about copyright than trademark. Indeed, according to my reading of the whole thing (which may be incorrect), one can freely reproduce this image, except for use within one's company logo. As such, I call for a Keep on my own nomination. Patstuart04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like many other things here which have trademark restrictions (at least in certain legal jurisdictions) but not copyright restrictions as such... AnonMoos10:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is plain that trademarks and copyrights are not the same. (2) Trademark restrictions come into effect whenever a trademarked item (like a logo) could be used to give the impression that the trademark owner produces or endorses some product or content. From (1) follows that trademarked items need to be regarded differently from copyrighted items. From (2) follows, in my opinion, that trademarked items, if they are not copyrighted and do have encyclopedic value, should not be deleted. Hardly any image is indeed free for any purpose. The NY logo is freely licensed, as far as copyrights are concerned. The trademark tag informs users that it may not be used for any purpose. I think this is sufficient and therefore propose a Keep as well. --rimshottalk12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The uploader (and nominator) has uploaded several similar images, claiming authorship. I see no reason to doubt those claims, and this image was probably taken at the same time. However, without a licence from the author, we cannot legally use it, and no licence has been added for more than seven days. —LX (talk, contribs)23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete per nom. Note: Majority of the uploader's images have already been deleted as identified problems; uploader not active since March. -- Infrogmation02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia image is first tagged PD-self then the uploader there said actually made by someone else not releasing copyright. Need comments. Jusjih02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look self made, and looks like a banner from a website. It is not used, and as it is particular to an occasion, I doubt it will be used in the future. Therefor: out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random personal photograph. No information on who these people are. The advertisement that goes with this image has been removed by admins more than once. Image is out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is claimed that the logo is not copyrighted because it is the work of a US government. But the logo doesn't just have trademark restrictions, it has so many restrictions that it can not be considered "free" in the spirit of free contents.
Keep It is the re-user's responsibility to comply with such requirements. For Commons' purposes, the image is free. -Nard23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Trademarks have to be restricted like that in order to remain trademarks. Nearly all of them have restrictions strong restrictions on commercial use (and even non-commercial use). Commons policy has always been that images only need to be free in the copyright sense. The main reason is because trademarks are not internationally respected like copyrights are. The policy doesn't always make sense, but that's what appears to be the consensus as of now. →Rocket°°°21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Punch is a British magazine, PD-US won't do for the commons, signed work, published on 1920 with no indication author died 70 years ago. I added a copyvio tag but this was disputed by the uploader. Their response is copied below. --Simonxag12:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly disputed, so much as I'm very uncertain of the ground on which we stand and see it as a much bigger issue that just 1920 Punch cartoons. We have a wealth of text in en.wiki from Encyclopaedia Brittanica 1911, and from the Dictionary of National Biography 1880-1900. Exactly the same logic as is being applied by Simon to this image might be applied to text from those publications - and yet they are being treated by one & all as PD (and not just PD-US). Now Simon may very well be right. But if so, we have a very much bigger problem on our hands. I'd like us to be certain sure of the ground we stand on before we single out this image. But be clear that I have no particular objection to this image being deleted; merely that if it is, then for the same reason very much else - hundreds of DNB articles - in en.wiki should also be.
The image itself came from Project Gutenberg, and so I wrote to them to try to ascertain why they're treating it as PD when we might wish to treat it as still under copyright. Useful background reading includes Commons:Licensing, notably the section dealing with w:en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which in short means if an article is copyright in the UK then it is copyright in the US. And w:en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom which sets out the term of protection for UK generated content.
Having reread these document this evening, it appears to me inescapable that UK generated content is protected for 70 years after the death of the author, or of the last surviving author of a jointly authored publication. If this is so, then let's do the maths:
30 year old contributes to Punch in 1920 and lives to 70 years. Date of death = 1960. Copyright expires 2030
30 year old contributes to EB1911 in 1911 and lives to 70 years. Date of death = 1951. Copyright expires 2021 I'm informed that EB1911 was published in the US, and so the problem does not pertain to it.
30 year old contributes to DNB in 1895 and lives to 75 years. Date of death = 1940. Copyright expires 2010
Unless we know the dates of deaths of the contributors, we do not know for certain the copyright expiry date.
Anyway. Here's my email to PG and their reply, FWIW
I'm involved in lifting content from PG and placing it on wikipedia. Would you have time to pass an opinion on what exactly is the copyright status of UK 1920s publications such as Punch magazine.
a) They may be in copyright in the UK under the date of death of author +70 year provision, and
b) in copyright in the US under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("Regarding the United States and non-U.S. works, one should bear in mind that the U.S. passed a law (the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, URAA) that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works if that work was still copyrighted in the foreign source country on the URAA date. This URAA date was January 1, 1996 for most couuntries. This means that foreign works became copyrighted in the U.S. even if they had been in the public domain in the U.S. before the URAA date.")
Any advice you could give would be welcome.
Hi, Simon. We really appreciate your efforts! Gettings things into wikipedia gives super exposure.
For your question: While I understand the issues as well as anyone, I really don't have any good answers. Yes, these items are PD in the US (pre-1923, basically anything is). But for the UK, the question is whether authors have their own copyright for contributions, or there is some sort of overall copyright as a serial, work for hire, etc.
The GATT extensions should not apply for this type of thing (your [b] below) -- that was only for a limited time. Our copyright howto at www.gutenberg.org has some details, or just grab the LoC's Circular on GATT (http://copyright.gov).
The other possibility is the "rule of the shorter term." I know that the US doesn't have one, but maybe the UK does for some situations.
Sorry we're not expert enough to provide a definitive answer. I think all the publication details of Punch etc. are in our eBooks, but if you have further questions about the printed sources we used, just ask.
Comment Commons goes by country of origin copyright. For a UK work, copyright status in the US is not relevent; you need to show it is copyrigtht expired or otherwise free by UK law for use here. (For the record, while this item is from the famous UK "Punch", I believe there was a less well known US magazine around this era also called "Punch"; I thought I should mention that in case something from that one pops up here.) -- Infrogmation01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that this image was created by the United Kingdom Government. It comes from the Imperial War Museum Collections which says that it's in the public domain but does not say why. I guess they treat it as PD because it's seized Nazi property, but that doesn't mean that it is PD in its country of origin, Germany, too. 91.65.124.3414:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide a reliable source that says that the author of that photo is unknown in general, not only to us. "I don't know who took this picture" is not a valid base for claiming the work was "anonymous". Lupo10:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the Heinrich Hoffmann archive, this photo (like many, many other deleted Hitler images on Commons) was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann. Use this site and search for "Hindenburg" in the Hoffmann archive. For me, it was the 34th photo on the results page (thumbnail). As Hoffmann died in 1957, his works are copyrighted until 2028. Seems like the Imperial War Museum's research is not very reliable. --88.134.141.13322:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Context & current political climate count for everything in deciding whether something is obscene. Think of Janet Jackson's silly breast exposure. Provocative sexualized pose, focus on the genitals, childish facial features and clothing, this adds up to trouble. We have plenty of furry-fan sexuality pics & could lose this. --Simonxag15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong license and OTRS ticket needed for the permission that *was* given for this image. A description of who this is would be nice too. Deadstar (msg) 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. It could be used in Criticism of Wikipedia articles, if not deleted by some guy, who can not accept such critic(s). The world isn't nice, critics neither. --VinceB22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as N. Glorification of concentration camps in combination with a multinational project like Wikipedia is a good reason for many users to leave the project. --32X02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Flickr user explicitly states that he is not the photographer of any of his uploads, so any licenses issued by him are null and void. (I really wish Flickr weren't so complacent about hosting copyright violations. There's no way to report copyright violations unless you are the copyright holder. If we can get things right using volunteers only, so can Yahoo Inc.) —LX (talk, contribs)01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete I'm the uploader and I must agree with this. The images (this one and the others from this user), very unfortunately, must be deleted. -- TakuyaMurata22:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak only. There's loads of "personal" photos on Commons, many of respected admins and other editors. I only say delete as this image is the users' only contribution. Majorly (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a {{screenshot}} of a television show. I've previously had to delete another television screenshot (complete with channel logo) depicting the same person and uploaded by the same user. —LX (talk, contribs)12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly self-made, but appears to be taken from some commercial map service. —LX (talk, contribs)17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Unless justified by author (only issue on talk page), uploaded 17-Nov-07: that map image has 40 streets carefully labeled, in style of Google-Maps or Mapquest, totally unlike most hand-edited maps. Author might not realize copying zoomed-map excerpts is illegal. Author notified. -Wikid7717:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source uploader listed is the name of this Japanese copyrighted book, from which uploader scanned the image without obtaining copyright holder's authorization. Claiming this image to be in public domain is clearly copyright infringement. The image needs to be removed immediately.
The source uploader listed is the name of this Japanese copyrighted book, from which uploader scanned the image without obtaining copyright holder's authorization. Claiming this image to be in public domain is clearly copyright infringement. The image needs to be removed immediately.
The source uploader listed is the name of this Japanese copyrighted book, from which uploader scanned the image without obtaining copyright holder's authorization. Claiming this image to be in public domain is clearly copyright infringement. The image needs to be removed immediately.
The source uploader listed is the name of this Japanese copyrighted book, from which uploader scanned the image without obtaining copyright holder's authorization. Claiming this image to be in public domain is clearly copyright infringement. The image needs to be removed immediately.
keep - i disagree with both rocket and tony, (liftan's pov i will not adress).
Ariel Sharon is a somewhat unique character in the arab-israeli conflict, as there is a type of dehumanization to the entire jewish people based on sharon as the iconography. there are children directed cartoons with him drinking the blood of arab children out of a "dara cola" can, there are drawings of him a devil walking over skulls, there are iranian cartoons with evil looking solders by the name "sharon" who are killing elderly women unprovoked, this is most certainly not a "cartoon" category, but a hate art section.
not all hate art is cartoons and not all cartoons are hate art. clearly, there is room for both categories, and they can both be registered if/when needed.
Comment I agree that not all 'Hate art' would fall within Cartoons or Caricatures but I do not agree that I would classify your examples (1-5) as 'hate' art - to me they are political cartoons equating Sharon with Hilter (no doubt meant to be highly offensive, but equating their policies and actions (I make no judgement here about the validity of that comparison)). The Iranian cartoons you describe may be nearer the mark as might be the sort of 'bayoneting babies' stuff that came out about the Kaiser in WWI, but propaganda is probably an apt term. I do not see 'hate art' being used anywhere else (eg is the term used in relation to Hitler, bin Laden or Bush - all hated by various peoples ?) --Tony Wills12:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tony on this one. No one was suggesting a "cartoon" category in the first place. I see no reason why these images can't just go in Category:Ariel Sharon. I think that would be the most neutral as no distinction or judgment needs to be made. I'm not sure about Category:Caricatures of Ariel Sharon either, because they aren't really caricatures in the traditional sense (look at Category:Caricatures of politicians or Category:Caricatures of Napoleon for examples of the usual meaning). These Ariel Sharon illustrations are not draw in the caricature style. Also remember we don't have to put them only in one category; actually we shouldn't. Our category system is not a tree (strict hierarchy). So, here's my suggestion: put the images in Category:Ariel Sharon (as that is the subject) and Category:Carlos Latuff, a sub-cat of Category:Political cartoons (as that is the type of image, specifically characterized by the author). This seems to be the standard practice with all other politicians. Rocket00023:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did suggest 'Caricatures of ...' or 'Cartoons of ...', elsewhere, as alternative categories and someone jumped the gun and made the 'Caricatures' version. And yes, strictly 'caricatures' are likenesses of people that emphasise physical features for humorous effect (eg if they have slightly larger ears or nose, then the caricature of them has very large ears or nose etc). So in general these ones are political cartoons (but we can handle that with a rename request). But, whatever we call it I don't think 'hate art' is right.
question/comment - let me get this straight, if someone draws a jewish leader as a baby killer nazi who walks on courpses, it's not hatespeech - it's a knock on his policies? i don't believe we should allow such BLP without a breakoff section - i also refer you (esp. rocket) to have a read at Antilocution. Jaakobou10:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't see why some politicians should get special treatment just because they are of a specific ethnicity. Cartoons critizing Robert Mugabe are not racist just because he's black. // Liftarn
Liftarn wrote: "I don't see why some politicians should get special treatment just because they are of a specific ethnicity". Therefore I don't see any reason to make catoons of politician as Nazi or Devils or such. BTW, I guess the desicion was to delete the category, so I'm deleting it. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
KeepEvery user is allowed to store an user image on Commons for use on user pages. That it is unused is no reason for deletion. --GeorgHH19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Scope clearly states that: "…uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example … a user page)."--OsamaK14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not even the uploader finds a use (such as on their user page) for a personal picture even after two months, I don't see how it's "useful for some Wikimedia project." The user was active for less than three weeks in July and August of this year and contributed a total of seven edits to two articles and one image. —LX (talk, contribs)14:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The response from SSU seems to me as if Henrik doesn't know much about licensing. He mentioned never explicitly that he agrees on licensing under GFDL. The answer that we can take some images from the pressbilder is a weak argument for licensing under GFDL. --Svens Welt12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translation of the response from Henrik Carlsson: "I use your web quite a lot and think it's great! Yes using our press images is fine. Just state the source of the image which is our web site 'www.ssu.se'." No licence is explicitly granted, and there is no assertion that Carlsson would be authorised to issue any licence. There is no explicit permission to publish modified copies of the work. —LX (talk, contribs)00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't read Swedish: the outcome of the Swedish deletion discussion was basically that the article which this image was used for the same as on English Wikipedia: it was deleted for lack of notability and because of conflict of interest problems.
The image is currently used on the subject-cum-uploader's user page, and the user is still active. The user explicitly claims to have taken the photo, and I see no reason to doubt that. Keep. —LX (talk, contribs)14:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is still active the then we don't need to relly on GFDL-presumed we can just ask him and get a straight answer. Same procedure should apply to this image as to any other uploaded without a license. On sv.wiki that would be 28 days (14 with "contacted template" 14 with "deleted template") for the uploader to add a license or ask what the hell does GFDL mean. Meanwhile I'll remove the incorrectly added GFDL tag from both the commons and sv.wiki versions. /Lokal_Profil01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hum.. Which reader? Arabic text have no problems with MediaWiki SVG reader I guess. There are more than one Arabic text shown clearly.. --OsamaK07:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEvery user is allowed to store an user image on Commons for use on user pages. That it is unused is no reason for deletion. --GeorgHH19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a personal photo, but the uploader is not the author of this picture, and so the picture has not permission. Reason: The pseudonym of the depicted person (Mitchel Onerom) is 'Desishat', which is the user name of the uploader too, but he can't be Onerom since the pictures were uploaded this September and Mitchel Onerom aka Desishat died last March. He was a Venezuelan writer of books of the gothic scene (see [78]). -- Cecil21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refer to the rule that states that they must be used, because Commons:Scope definitely does not mention anything like that. And as already mentioned, this is not a personal photo. -- Cecil15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project"--OsamaK13:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If not even the uploader finds a use (such as on their user page) for a personal picture, even after two months, I don't see how it's "useful for some Wikimedia project." Delete. —LX (talk, contribs)14:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PD-Art tag was indeed wrong. However as Kliun died in Russia in 1942 I believe the work qualifies as PD-Russia; I am therefore changing the tag accordingly and vote Keep. -- Infrogmation23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PD-Art tag was indeed wrong. However as Kliun died in Russia in 1942 I believe the work qualifies as PD-Russia; I am therefore changing the tag accordingly and vote Keep. -- Infrogmation23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per nom. Still orphaned and since it's unknown what it shows (some man cooking?) it will not be used. So scope-problem. Cecil15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Press licence (essentially a fair-use affirmation) without explicit permission to publish modified copies or use in a commercial context. —LX (talk, contribs)09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Images downloaded from these pages may not be used in advertising." IMHO this is not a free license acceptable on Commons. Botev02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is a useful image, so it's a shame it's not free enough per Commons licensing policy. A fair use claim might be made for using it in the en:Wikipedia article. -- Infrogmation15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's useful. If you can put it as "fair use" on English wikipedia, I will not oppose. But it should be deleted from Commons. :( --Botev15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Images downloaded from these pages may not be used in advertising." IMHO this is not a free license acceptable on Commons. Botev02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, please forgive me for my poor language. the man in the picture is the chief of the greek comunity in gerusalem, a profossor for arciology. Tzaferis Vassilios is his name.he is the first one who found a nail that was used for Crucifixion. this picture will be used in the he.wikipedia
Comment Yes, Google search confirms he is a noted archaeologist as well as a Greek Orthodox Monastic scholar. Thank you for the identification. -- Infrogmation20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. If anyone wants to change the name of the image, re-upload under the new name, change all references, and mark the old one for speedy deletion with {{badname}}. —LX (talk, contribs)21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep - Actually, that is an inference into the presentation that you cannot make. It is "obviously" an image used in a presentation released by the United States Federal Government, and as such, public domain. Dark journey22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
works are in the public domain, if they were created by employees of the federal government, not if they were merely used (with or without permission) by an employee. There is not even a hint, that this image was created by an employee of the federal government. --h-stt!?12:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious copyright status; original uploader on enwiki w:User:Jashimitiku was likely a sockpuppet and certainly not a legal representative of the entity whose seal this supposedly is, so PD-self is bogus. I surely wish people would do some rudimentary fact-checking before transferring images to commons. --Future Perfect at Sunrise19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof of what you are saying ("was likely"?)? Or is it just another political intent, as it was before, to delete the image? (Note that an admin. decided to keep it) --Bucephala23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the burden of proof would be on "Jashimitiku" to demonstrate he is the legal owner of the copyright. Don't hold your breath. Also, note that the previous keep was purely on procedural grounds, as it was a random bad-faith nomination.
As for political motivation, I can actually see a point in keeping it for illustrating the w:Vergina sun article on enwiki - but that would have to be under a "fair use" rationale, which means we'd have to host it on enwiki, not here on commons. Future Perfect at Sunrise15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the article on en:wiki? I brought the image to commons to illustrate the same article on es:wiki. If this image is deleted, the article is damaged also. Is this en:wiki-centrism? By the way, you haven't demonstrated you accusation that Jashimitiku is a sockpuppet, which is a serious one. The image was kept because they tried to delete it for nationalistic purposes. If the image had violated the terms, an admin. would have deleted it inmediately. The insistence to delete this image denotes political reasons, to keep Vergina's Sun and other "Greek" symbols only in images related to Greece (from your contributions I can see you are trying to do this on other images as well). I am a Greek-Macedonian, but I understand that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, you have to show both uses of the symbol, in Greece and in other countries. Please, leave politics behind, we are trying to make an encyclopedia here. Greetings --Bucephala18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's something I do not understand: why should the uploader have to be "a legal representative of the entity"? Is there such an entity? If that is the case, are their symbols protected or in the public domain? --Dodo18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Bucephala: I don't know what the Spanish Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is, so I can't help you with that, but if the Spanish Wikipedia allows fair-use images then there is nothing that could stop you from re-uploading it there, locally. It's your responsibility at eswiki. But commons doesn't do non-free images.
As for Jashimitiku having been a sock, well, it's pretty obvious if you know the backgrounds on enwiki. It was uploaded several times by hit-and-run throwaway accounts.
As for your speculations about my political motives: they are hasty and out of place, and, I can assure you, entirely wrong. (Just ask people on enwiki.)
To Dodo: That one's even more obvious, I would have thought. It's supposed to be a seal of a municipality in Albania, that's the whole point of having it. Obviously the municipality would own the copyrights. We have no indication that municipal symbols in Albania are exempt from copyright (I even checked a copy of the Albanian copyright law), default assumption is that they are not. Future Perfect at Sunrise20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, Commons does not allow non-free images, but the point is that you haven't proved that it's a non-free image. I don't need your help on the type of content es:wiki can have since I am one of its sysops. What I want is concise proof that the image violates the terms. If it does, I will happily accept its deletion. If it doesn't, it must be kept. But don't propose an image for deletion and base your accusation on assumptions: if you have no indications that Albanian municipal symbols are copyrighted or not, get info. first and then try to delete an image if you are totally sure it violates the terms. And whether the original uploader was a sockpuppet or not doesn't matter here. --Bucephala21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are getting the burden of proof mixed up. Images are assumed to be copyrighted until proven otherwise. And in fact, as I said, I even did go and check the Albanian copyright law [81], and I can't find any exemption for public emblems. And the sockiness of the uploader does indeed play a role, because it's important for assessing the credibility of his claim that the image was not only public domain but his own work. That credibility is zero. Future Perfect at Sunrise23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, but has the original uploader been informed about this? Maybe he just put the wrong license, because I have a feeling that public symbols are not copyrighted. Can anyone who knows the Albanian copyright laws confirm this? It is obvious the image is not the uploader's work, I wasn't discussing that. What I want to know is if the image is free or not. Greetings --Bucephala12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a throwaway account with only two edits (this upload and the insertion of the image in a page), in early September. I mean, I have a hunch who it was, it's a banned user anyway. Not worth sweating over. As for Albanian copyright law, we'll probably not find anyone more competent than you or me checking the link I gave you. I did. Future Perfect at Sunrise23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This (older) image states "Reprocessed by R. Castelnuovo to get a lighter HR image." I however don't see much of a difference. Deadstar (msg) 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is misleading because it can make sameone think that there is something special about seals and copyright and that seals can't be copyrighted. Licensing information should be told with regular license templates, such {{PD-because}}, {{PD-old}} etc. To warn people not to misuse seals can be done with a separate template, e.g. {{Seal}}. Samulili07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As LX. I've seen some users using this template instead of the Swedish fair use version (before it was dissalowed on sv.wiki) and I'd expect similar things happen with users from other wikis. /Lokal_Profil00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as deleted, however the template will only be deleted after going through all images using them, so it's going to take a while... any help is greatly appreciated!! Patríciamsg12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Added a few more. These are iPod touch rather then iPhones but the same applies. If the result of this discussion is deletion then please retagg the originals on en.wiki etc. or the images will just be transwikied again later on./Lokal_Profil22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be to crop the images so that the user interface is not displayed... but then one could just take a photo of a turned of iPhone instead. /Lokal_Profil22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The user interface is copyright as well as the case as well as the look of thousands of other products. You are not allowed to recreate such things. But that does not mean that you are not allowed to publish photos (!) of such products. -- aka07:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user interface is copyrighted. The industrial design of the utilitarian object itself is not copyrighted, but patented. You are allowed to publish photos of patented objects, but you are not allowed to publish derivative works of non-free copyrighted non-utilitarian works of the mind such as computer graphics. See Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs)22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "it was not infringing copyright because of a legal ruling that concluded that it was not possible to patent the "look and feel" of a computer interface." "In 1994, Microsoft won a lawsuit brought by Apple for copying graphics from the Macintosh operating systems for use in Windows." [82]Nzgabriel09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse patents and copyright. Also, I wouldn't use news.com.au as an authoritative source on legal issues (or anything else for that matter). —LX (talk, contribs)22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there may be a good argument, that it isn't going to result in a lawsuit, the simple fact is that the copyright backdrop, icons, design, etc. make it not free enough for commons. I cannot reuse the image by cutting out the icons and creating my own phone user interface - therefore it isn't free enough for commons. Megapixie12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think this is "clean enough" for commons, but its important to remember it could still go on an individual wikipedia where the copyright guidelines aren't as stringent. Frijole14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Commons The images, including their interfaces, are a vital component to the English Wikipedia (among possibly others) and fair use can be justified for that project. Please upload every image to the separate Wikipedia image library, with fair use rationales.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The UI is fair use when used alongside critique. We discuss the product, from its strong points to flaws, so it is fair use. Case closed. Aido200204:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone whit the relevant language knowledge (or in the case of en.wiki the knowledge about how their fair-use templates work) could upload the image to those wikis then we should be able to og back to the blurred version. As far as I've identified the wikis in question are chinese, hebrew, english and simple english. And we should remember that just as we shouldn't rush for the sake of the fair-use tolerant projects we also shouldn't delay for the sake of the non-fair-use projects. /Lokal_Profil12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried upload Image:IPod Line.png to en.wikipedia, leaving my computer to sit and upload the massive file for almost 12 hours, but it still hadn't gone through. Is there any way to just sever to Commons ties and have the image stored directly on the English Wikipedia?--HereToHelp (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I run into "Upload warning. A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." which is not very heplful. Is there any way of forcing the image to be uploaded? Or perhaps (in this case) an en.wiki admin can just restore the old version on en.wiki /Lokal_Profil01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the blurred version has been restored together with a link to the en.wiki unblurred version for those wikis that allow Fair use. /Lokal_Profil21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete images of the UI because of copyright concerns from commons, but it is obviously fair use on en.wiki, and so should be moved there first. 72.244.65.23403:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing the complete deleteion of the image, as in commons and en.WP, or commons alone? If it is only to delete from commons (or delete and re-upload, technically) then I'm in favor. Aido200205:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'ts a delete (or replacement with blurred screens where applicable) on Commons. Wikis which allow fair use (such as en.wiki) can still use the old image though but it will have to be locally uploaded (under a different name if the Commons version si blurred). /Lokal_Profil23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is wikioverpolicing at its finest. Deletion requests like this make me want to leave Wiki*edia. This is nothing but free advertising for Apple Inc.: They are not going to sue anybody. I suggest you request the deletion of pretty much every picture Wiki*edia hosts. Most designs, layouts, blueprints, etc. are copyrighted in some form. --Indolences01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the point was not to get sued, we could go ahead and use Apple's images, where the pixels of the hardware are copyrighted, too. Trade magazines get away with this stuff all the time. However, we must hold the Commons to the standards not of Apple but of the Commons. They'll be fine on en.wiki or other local projects with a quick rationale, but not on Commons. (See Megapixie's first comment.)--HereToHelp (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are we even voting on this? The whole point of the Commons is to provide free content. It's not free, therefore it does not belong here. Delete these, and move [some of] them back to en, where they can qualify as Fair Use. tiZom(2¢)20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the user didn't say "I own this User Interface" or such explanation of the case. Also, it is only copyright infringement if the user didn't credit the originating website, person, or him/herself. If this is the case, notify the user instead of this deletion request. --69.113.239.14922:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true. Crediting the director/producer of a movie does not give you the right to use that movie in a derivative work. Similar thing applies here. Unless apple has licensed their user interface under a free license any image including the UI is a copyvio. /Lokal_Profil01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question to Lokal Profil: I can see you are concerned about the User Interface being copyrighted. Apple did get serious about the iPhone icons being leaked all over the internet. However, the images reported as copyright infringement don't represent any of that. That and Apple isn't losing or gaining profit this way. Are you overreacting or am I wrong? --69.113.239.14919:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. This simply isn't free as in "libre" media. Shouldn't be uploaded here full stop. Apples reaction simply isn't important. Megapixie03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is overkill. Criminy, it's a photograph of a MP3 player. I think people are (mistakenly) conflating of a photo of something (ipod), and the reproduction of an application interface. They're not the same thing and I suspect we're being overly cautious here.Mattnad22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only time you should ever delete an Apple 'Touch' Generation photo is if it only shows the UI and not the product showing it. There's no problem with the product, it's to show the product and nothing more. If it were showing the cropped UI image, then it's what you're describing. So you're describing the wrong thing. --24.187.45.022:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the graphics submitted here in a mass request for deletion fall under the claimed reason "The user interface is copyrighted", because none of them is a depiction of the user inferface! These are informative, identyfying pictures of various consumer products, which incidentally happen to reveal a minute amount of the user interface seen more or less obliquely, as part of an overall encyclopedic illustration of an item. Let's not get overzealous, and in the process impute legal restrictions to images where there aren't any. The pictures of these computing devices are only tangential to their interfaces anyway; none of them is a depiction of an interface as such. This request for deletion should be withdrawn as a waste of time, a case of a general misunderstanding of principles involved, and an unwitting contribution to global FUDding :). Peas. --Mareklugtalk07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It too is a picture of a device, suitable for an encyclopedia entry or another Wikimedia project: It depics among other things the ergonomics of use, how big the device and its controls are, or the order of magnitude of their set, and the controls are depicted in this case relative to the size of a human hand, conveing such information as that a stylus is not physically required to resolve them, but a fingertip would do, or what a sighted person might reasonably expect to see. Again, in order to convey this salient information about the device as a whole, a minute portion of the user interface is obliquely visible in a picture for reasons of scale and to present contextualized information as to what the device is like. It is not a depiction or derivative work of the interface itself, while conveying some information about how one interfaces with the device. This situation might be comparable to a picture of an airliner on Commons, where the airliner livery, including the copyrighted logo or logotype or lettering with the airline's name are all prominent. No one is requesting the deletion of those graphics from Commons. --Mareklugtalk14:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of those arguments are very valid... for a fair use rational on en.wiki. On Commons we however require that all images can be used for derivative and commercial use. /Lokal_Profil15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you just said above, all of those arguments are very valid, you just admitted that you're wrong: the argument about airliner images on Commons incidentally showing copyrighted interface information is one you have no answer for. It's only your opinion/interpretation about the other arguments supporting only fair use on the English Wikipedia, and you are mistaken. Kindly withdraw the silly, time-wasting deletion proposal already. --Mareklugtalk15:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apple's logo isn't copyrighted too? We begin here and won't end ever... Siorc
Two wrongs don't make a right though. This is also about the iPhone picture, not about the Apple logo. Let's stick to the subject. -- Northgrove18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I take a picture of a cityscape and it happens to have a copyrighted logo on a building in it I can still license my picture under a free license. I think the same kind of rule applies here--otherwise it's saying that there can never be a free picture of an iPhone while it's turned on, and that's unreasonable. -- LastUserNameEver18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? There can newer be a free pictura of a computer runing Windows whilst it's turned on, same thing. The difference between the iphone image and the cityscape with the logo is that there the unfree part of the image hopefulle does not occupy about 80% of the picture. /Lokal_Profil22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree...it's also unreasonable to say that you can't have a free picture of a computer running windows. But, I digress. Anyway, I think this has a lot to do with intentions. If the intention of the picture is mainly to show the iPod touch UI, then there's a better argument for deletion than if the image is used to illustrate the iPod touch hardware. I think we're shooting for a sort of middle-ground, that gives you the whole iPod touch feel. And if we're saying that individual wikis have to use fair-use images to illustrate iPod touch, why not just use official press images from Apple? You're bound to get in a lot less trouble calling those fair use than calling these fair use. -- LastUserNameEver15:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is copyrighted, provide a fair use rationale as to why an image of the phone and its interface is directly applicable to the article on the iPhone. Make sure it is not used anywhere else. Dont just delete it. Chrislk0221:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A photograph of an office where some computer screens with a Windows desktop happened to be visible could of course be kept, but here the user interface itself makes up too much of the image. Replace with images of turned-off i-phones, etc. /NH13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the result of this discussion is delete (which looks unlikely, given the votes so far), then I would prefer blurred iPhone/iPod touch pictures to turned-off iPhone pictures, because it would still give at least a vague idea of what they look like in use. Though I still maintain my belief that the images are free, like the hypothetical office photograph. The main thing in the images is the hardware, not the UI. -- LastUserNameEver18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as it has been said above: since I can't copy the images and use them in the interface for the nhPhone they are not free - not in the sense that they could be kept on Commons. /NH10:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't about the approximate "look-and-feel" this about exact reproduction of the icons on the screen (i.e. copyright images). Megapixie22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The icons are a part of the UI. Therefore, they can be reproduced exactly. Besides, Lotus v. Borland says that the configuration and look of a UI cannot be copyrighted, and we are only showing the configuration and look of the UI.Aido200221:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's totally incorrect. What Lotus vs Borland does say, is that you can copy (i.e. re-implement) someone else's menu structure (i.e. File->Open, etc) and general interface (i.e. that being able to right click on a weblink brings up a menu). These are un-copyrightable because it's a method of operation (like having a gear lever in a car). What it does say is that you can't do is copy copyright material embedded in a user interface - i.e. images (icons), sounds, etc. Megapixie21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's loads of copyrighted stuff on Commons. For instance, look here or here. —the preceding unsigned comment was added byTrappleton (talk • contribs) 04:14, January 27, 2008
Deleted. To end the discussion after nearly 3 month. All except Image:IPod Line.png (blurred screen) deleted, because of copyright violation. When screens of Computers show a copyrighted background image or screenshots consists of copyrighted material, we do exactly the same. So, I decide the same way in this case. ChristianBier09:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I put a category on it, as without one, it would be completely lost in this great universe of images... I don't mind whether it gets deleted or not, if the gallery is not helpful, delete the page it can always be recreated. Deadstar (msg) 08:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe am 18. November (Sonntag) bei ZDF per Mail um eine Permission angesucht, bitte vor einem Löschen daher um etwas Geduld.--Satmap17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Keepstrong keep. No, the image does not apply to pma, and has been on wikipedia with the same information since many years ago. - Zarbon00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 70 years p.m.a. applies. Image may be PD in the U.S. as a confiscated image, but that doesn't make it PD anywhere else. Upload locally at en-WP. Lupo07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if the image is deleted from commons, it will disappear from the wikiquote page. If you know how to transfer an existing image from en-WP to wikiquote, be my guest, I haven't figured it out. But the image should remain on the wikiquote page to better illustrate the person. If you know how to upload the image and still have it show up on wikiquote without having it remain on commons, then please do it. Any help would be nice here. - Zarbon16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Hello, the image is on wikipedia as well under another name with the same exact reasoning given. In any case, there has to be a way to maintain this image on wikiquote whether or not its not wikimedia commons and I don't know of any other. Want to help me... - Zarbon17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. En.wikiquote decided only true free images, and this is the price of that community decision which must be held. -- Drini05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ! Kaltenbrunner is a historic person. He is shown "as was" on the image. In my opinion, the so called "personal rights" do not apply to historic persons, particularly if they are dead. Him being one of the most terrible criminals and mass murderers in human history voids all his and ereryone else's rights on the image. Who asks his victims if they want to be shown as images ? But they are and so should he!
Keep I vote keep. the image has the same rules as applied to wikipedia. I believe the image is also needed on commons to begin with. I agree with Zarbon and the last person. - 68.173.179.24401:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are no copyright violations for this image. It should be kept intact. the author of the work is from fuhrerhauptquartier wolfschanze 1940. - 207.38.164.9322:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
orginal uploader on en wiki User:Sacredhands is the author of this picture - Christopher Peterson. See User page on en wiki Stanmar13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an informational plaque from a building in Stockholm, published by the National Property Board, a Swedish government agency. Statutes, rulings and decrees made by the government are exempt from copyright protection in Sweden, but other government works are not, and I don't think this falls into any of those categories.
However, it might be free under 24 § freedom of panorama provisions if the sign is permanently posted outdoors, which it appears to be. —LX (talk, contribs)22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering the content, is it really worth keeping? It's only really useful on sv.wiki and there the information should rather be rephrased and worked into the article then displayed through an image. /Lokal_Profil21:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I would've strongly considered deletion if there were already an SVG of it, but I couldn't find one. Kept and tagged with {{SVG}}. Dcoetzee04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted. Its copy on nl was deleted, and this was the only place where information about its source was available. Hence it's been unsourced for months and can be speedied. Dcoetzee05:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading this image, the uploader stated that he got this image from Google Maps. He later changed that to "self-made", which is hard to believe. -- 91.65.124.3400:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above statement is an assumption made by the anonymous anon-ip user. In fact, the only things we know for certain is that the image was obtained from a presentation made by a representative of the United States Federal Government, in the course of his duties. As such, the presentation itself and images used are public domain. Dark journey04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Based on a real photograph that is very likely copyrighted by the IDF. The cartoon by Latuff is a derivative of that photo and therefore Latuff’s claim of "copyright free" might be invalid. --Liftarn13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the photograph of which this is clearly modified from can be identified as similarly free licenced. (Some of this cartoonists work look like original cartoons and others look like modifications of news photos likely used without credit or permission; I think Commons should not store copies of those in the second category.) -- Infrogmation20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Infrogmation. If the underlying photo is copyrighted, the author's use of it may fall under "fair use" (parody/satire/caricature), but this "fair use" makes the cartoon ineligible for being hosted here. Lupo22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requester has not demonstrated that the image is based on a real photograph. Grounds to such gratuitous statements, we could delete the most part of the Commons database. --Juiced lemon10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO there is no need to "demonstrate that the image is based on a real photograph" as anybody can see that. And if I remember our rules rightly, the uploader of an image has to demonstrate that it is free. -- Túrelio14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without any demonstration, “based on a real photograph” is a spurious statement, made-up in order to delete the image for undisclosed reasons. --Juiced lemon13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Liftarn: though we differ in opinion, thanks for that excellent research! A right-click on that image on the BBC website gives the file name "_38741463_soldiervote3001_ap"; additionally the image carries a vertical caption "AP" on the right side. So this is a photography by AP. Were are lucky AP hasn't sued us already. -- Túrelio14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this racist cartoon is based on a real picture, without any details about the original picture and naturally withouth any permission. Even if Carlos Latuff himself would upload this image to commons, it could be a false Authorship claim. Yuval Y § Chat § 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio (derivative work). May be restored if the original picture is proved to be free. // Liftarn
It is not the same picture : as the title and the description may tell you, it has been translated into French. Please check before nominating for deletion :-) le Korrigan→bla23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
because it's mine, i just uploaded it and just can't figure out how to use in in my article, wikipedia is getting on my nerves and I just want to delete my drawing. Please. Sokola00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll raise that to Deletespeedily. Try going here, entering 12718447 as the friend ID (which is the one for ATDI's MySpace). The second image that comes up is the image being discussed right now, in a higher resolution. Blatant copyright violation. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author is unknown, and the SI became what it is today in 1951, so it is unlikely that the logo is in the public domain. Please note that it is used at the English Wikipedia under a fair use claim. --Boricuæddie16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not PD as described. May have been released into the PD but I doubt it. Needs to be transferred back to Wikipedias where it is used. --Simonxag22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not free; deleted. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Useful for news and commentaries on Charity fundraising. --Simonxag 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Simonxag (assuming that we are confident that the person who uploaded was entitled to release the rights). But we should remove the lengthy promotional copy in the description. - Jmabel | talk23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per nom. Also there is the question if the author was really allowed to make the picture, because in museums it is usually not, especially not with a flash. Cecil16:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
VW logo used + this logo copyrighted by vwbusclub.nl. I have left message with user requesting OTRS permission, but as the VW logo is used, not sure if "vwbusclub.nl" can actually release it into the PD? Deadstar (msg) 10:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This map says "All of the Netherlands", but has the BENELUX coloured in red. It also has a copyright sign at the bottom. Image:Heel-Nederland.PNG is a cut out from the first image, and has the copyright sign nearly cut off. Nominating both images for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted both. Anything with a copyright notice like that is suspicious. "Zwart & Geel" means "Black and Yellow", and is probably the name of some website or firm. Also, they're orphaned anyway. Dcoetzee05:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this picture. If the "copyright violation" is about not being allowed to take a picture of an item like this: I'm sorry, I didn't know that. - Erik Baas01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you would read more about copyright and not make your own rules. You are mass manipulating my and other pictures and claiming credits for doing so. You removing information from pictures, you are removing the names of the creatiors of the pictures if you see them.
"I'm sorry is not enough". Start removing AAAAAAALLL the pictures from your homepage that are not yours , and where you are claiming credits!. Ed Stevenhagen Wikipedia NL ~~
Deleted' 30 December 2007 user:S1 deleted "Image:Cristie logo.jpg" (In Category:Unknown as of 20 November 2007, missing or bad information on author and/or license and/or source)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The illustrations and photographs can be used on non-commercial base only if:
a. you mention the source (this website: www.applesnail.net)
b. give the credits to their owner.
c. Use of the illustration and photographs for commercial purpose is not allowed.
The file on Commons is not for commercial use so do forgive me, but I can't understand why it should not be possible to use it. --Munifico01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Commons only hosts images that can be used commercially, not by us, but by other people. This image can't be hosted here because of its copyright status. Sorry. --Boricuæddie03:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a fair-use parody of a painting by Kenneth Riley, who is presumably still alive. [83]. Slamandersociety.com does not have any right to release a copyrighted work like this one into the public domain. —Remember the dot(talk)05:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Patstuart. Plus the fact that Commons is overwhelmed with pictures of this theme. There are a category containing images of male genitalia, where a special sign has been put up to discourage further uploading. Maybe it is time for a similar sign regarding female buttocks as well? Jorva20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are categorized as such. There are a lot in related categories, like underwear-categories, where it is obvious that the pices of cloth is of secondary importance. Jorva23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of buttocks in certain sorts of picture is inevitable. We all have them, otherwise our legs would fall off. That's a far cry from saying there are loads of near-identical (and hence useless) uploads, such as we have of penises. --Simonxag02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "we all have them" is the reason why there are 105 female buttocks and 36 male buttocks searchable on these keywords in the image namespace... Seriously, the kind of pictures I am talking about is nothing else but soft porn, poorly disguised as "informative" works of different kind of underwear. Should Commons host more than a representative amount of soft porn, while other kinds of porn is kept down in numbers? Male genitalia are not more identical than female buttocks. Half of mankind has one, each one unique, each one alike. Jorva23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not porn, it's just simple nudity. And there's a slight difference between buttocks and a penis: today it's okay to show buttocks in commercials, movies and on the beach, but it's not common to show your penis in public in the western world. --91.65.124.3412:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote soft porn, which at least in Swedish is understood as pictures not neccesarily showing naked skin or genitalia, but still created in order to awake people's (mostly heterosexual men's) sexual desires. I have no problem with naked penises or naked vulvas (in their proper categories as pornography or human anatomy) , but I do have a problem with 100+ female buttock pictures similar to this [Image:Upskirt3.jpg] in categories named things like "stockings". I am not against porn or nudity in general, I am against pornification of other areas. Which brings us back to the subject of this discussion (red-G-string-image) - is this an informative bild on the subject G-strings or not? Does this picture have any significant information value at all? Jorva22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the picture considered here for deletion is in Category:Striptease; it's one of 26 that document that art-form. All (bar a couple of underexposed shots that do need deleting) could count as porn for somebody's or other. None, certainly not this one, are explicit enough for a real-world soft-porn mag like "Playboy". The Commons are not censored (except insofar as US law requires). I suggest that editors who dislike women's bottoms stop looking at pictures of strippers and underwear. --Simonxag23:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Simonxag, you went a bit too far. There is no one here disliking women's bottoms. I have spent hours bringing more structure to the underwear-category (with male and female sub-categories) lately and I will continue doing this until these categories are easily navigable and as non-sexistic as possible. You don't need to teach anyone about explicity in porn either, the only thing that differs this picture from a general non-nude soft porn picture is the image quality and the light conditions. Soft porn pictures that don't reveal everything do have their market. Before this image was nominated for deletion I changed the category from G-string to women's G-string, but I will now take it out of the underwear categories by the above stated reasons. If these kind of pictures are kept in porn/striptease categories, I have no objections. After proper categorization there will sooner or later be too many of the same theme and som sort of limitation will be called for. Jorva00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep Image is not redundant in light of the number of buttock/striptease related images as it illustrates the phenomenon "upskirt", the Wikipedia article on which is badly in need of a photograph like this. Barring explicit, obvious legal rights violation rationale, this image is needed by the Wikicommons project. If clearcut legal violations can be shown, I'll change to delete. Until then, it's an obvious keep.Astrojunta01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added this to w:Upskirt today, before noticing the deletion request. Upskirt has had problems with questionably sourced images. I'm very interested in seeing how this is decided. An image like this is needed, but not at the expense of personality rights or other legal concerns. / edg☺☭04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD-art doesn't work here; we don't know anything about the author. PD-US probably wouldn't work either, as the individual lived well past 1923. And the GFDL tag is more than a bit odd. RG209:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taken from a page with a clear copyright notice; the "PD-Art" and "GFDL" tags seem inappropriately slapped on at random. No evidence that this image is public domain nor free licenced. -- Infrogmation16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect, User:Termer that's my username also in Wiki and I just tried to rename my account at one point accordingly to keep it the same but then it didn't work or something and I ended up using the redirect somehow...If possible and anybody has any admin tools, or knows how to rename my userpage-name-account, would be nice if I could have the same username on both commons and wiki. But then again it doesn't matter really. The redirect is a bit messy I agree and in case you have any suggestions what should be done about it, please let me know. --Terker03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pictures created/published before 12 December 1992 in Estonia are not protected by copyright according to the younger than 70 years rule! Please see a commentary at juridica.ee by Heiki Pisuke, Professor of Institute of Law, concerning the retroactivity of authors and related rights: The 1992 text of the Copyright Act did not provide a direct answer to the question of whether works created before the entry into force of the Act (12 December 1992) are also protected under copyright. The 1999 amendments make it clear: (§88) that such works are protected under copyright within the whole term of copyright which, as a rule, is the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death. -related rights are protected during the entire term of protection (as a rule, for fifty years).--Termer09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always stand on bureaucracy, we try to do the right thing. Why not help out and do whatever is needful to get it listed properly if you don't mind, so we get more discussion? I do tend to agree with your reasoning though. ++Lar: t/c11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I've let the deletion nominator know [84] that he has not completed the deletion procedure and what the situation is according to the Estonian copyright law with the retroactive rights as spelled out by the Professor of Institute of Law. Sorry but that's the best I can do as somehow I just don't have it in me, listing images for deletion by myself that I've uploaded because it's free and not copyrighted to the best of my knowledge. --Termer17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The commentary by the professor above appears to be outdated since Estonia had joined the EU in 2004, and therefore the authors rights that include economical rights meaning copyright in this case life+70 according to the general EU rules should apply. This has been my mistake, the image is not free, authors rights including copyright are still valid. Therefore please delete the image from commons. Thanks!--Termer05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Permission=Only friends" implies not for free general use. "Other versions" gives links to personal blog-- intended for vanity blog use only? --Infrogmation11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Card dates from around 1996 --20 November 2007 user:Ellywa
I took this picture. If it is not allowed to take a picture of an item like this: I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I also don't understand why the "around 1996" is so important. - Erik Baas01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1996 means it is far to modern to be in de Public Domain. For a design to become PD, the designer should be deceised (overleden) at least 70 years, at least according to Dutch law. Elly08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User Juninho.natal.rn (talk • contribs) has uploaded several pictures that look retrieved from websites. One of them was identified and deleted as such. There are a couple of photos that have metadata from (presumably) his camera, and those are not included in this request. I think I could have speedy-deleted most of these as "obvious copyvios" but since the user is not only uploading copyvios, I'd like to hear second opinions on this. Many of these photos are "promotional-type", aerial photos, etc.
Keep, pois de acordo com as legislações brasileiras, abaixo relacionadas, nenhum direito autoral ou de divulgação foi violado:
Lei 9.279 de 14 de maio de 1996, Art. 124, inciso I - Lei da Propriedade Industrial de Marcas e Patentes - que trata dos Sinais Não Registráveis como Marca (Caput e Título III - Das Marcas).
This picture is a promotional picture, If you search on fort minor in other languages you see that everybody has has a picture like this, this picture should stay, Tiberiusw
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. No proper source, and if it really is hidden somewhere in the archives of the festival-organiser than the permission is missing. Cecil16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. It's a picture of the cat in this comic, so it is derivative. And freedom of panorama does not apply since the picture was made in a museum (Stripmuseum) and the cat is not permanently installed. Cecil16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-photographic work created in 1940, author not stated. No reason to assume that it's been more than 50 years since the creator's death (thus - not PD under Japanese law). Botev13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. According to the official report the postcards where drawn by Taikan Yokoyama and Masami Iwata. Yokoyama died in 1958, so his images would be free with January 1, 2009. But Iwata died 1988. His images are free in 30 years. Currently images of both artists are not allowed, but since it is unknown who made which cards, none of them can be used until 2038, unless somebody can dig something out about it. -- Cecil17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Non-photographic work created in 1940, author not stated. No reason to assume that it's been more than 50 years since the creator's death (thus - not PD under Japanese law). Botev13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Non-photographic work created in 1940, author not stated. No reason to assume that it's been more than 50 years since the creator's death (thus - not PD under Japanese law). Botev13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Non-photographic work created in 1940, author not stated. No reason to assume that it's been more than 50 years since the creator's death (thus - not PD under Japanese law). Botev13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Non-photographic work created in 1940, author not stated. No reason to assume that it's been more than 50 years since the creator's death (thus - not PD under Japanese law). Botev13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Incomplete deletion request by uploader. He writes, "non sono sicuro sui termini della licenza", "I am unsure about the terms of the license. I tend to agree: Delete. --Patstuart (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. No proper source. With 1928 as date it theoretically could be in public domain, but it would mean that the photographer had to die within ten years. With that kind of non-existing source and no names author that's a little bit to close for me. To the uploader: please provide a better source, than we can restore it. Cecil18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted.Kopieren von Fotos nur nach vorheriger Erlaubnis durch ... => Copying of pictures only after permission through ... => no permission. Cecil16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I have uploaded new version with good name and brighter picture, when it gets deleted you will have to replace the deletd picture with the good picture into all the other articles that have this image and it is in a few different languages as well this one) --Adam.J.W.C.06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably get rid of this photograph. This summer, in an effort to improve all of the "body part' articles I had invited a friend who is a model to allow me to photograph his body. At the time, the body part articles were littered with camera phone cock shots and the chest of every due and bro who thought their muscles were encyclopedic. The results were these body parts for those articles. Admittedly, this particular photo was shunned by every project. I don't expect it will ever be used, so we can probably delete it unless a project has a use for it.. --DavidShankbone15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think drawings in anatomy books should be decent enough. This is closer to pornography then to medical photo. --Alex:D22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I agree with Alex:D... but, that's a reason not to use it in the article... the Commons is a place to have more images and to be a repository for this type of image. With no copyright issues... an image of a model's penis by a professional photographer should not be deleted. We don't delete images from the Commons just because they are not the best images and therefore don't make it into the articles... this could be a great image for penis, but we choose to use the less flashy medical drawing for a variety of reasons. 71.185.168.9908:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright issue is not the only limit. Here's a quote from the help pages: "Files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." Now, where would this erection picture fit in a Wikimedia project? AdiJapan12:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At Czech Wikipedia was this circumcised penis often used for vandalism, but it isn´t problem of the image which has encyclopedic value. --Dezidor22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it could be useful in the sexuality portal, it could be useful to a university student to include in an assignment on human biology, artistic nudity, the male body, human physiology, the anus, the penenium the scrotum, the penis, body hair, physchology, human sexuality, sociology, cultural anthropology, come on its just a dick and balls half of us have one, why are people so affraid look down your pants you might have one!!!71.142.74.13221:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only problem with the screen may be the Asus and Skype logos and I don't think the inclusion of them is a real issue. If it is they may be blurred or something. // Liftarn
Keep - The screen is just a customized version of Xandros, which is a distribution of Linux. As Vipersnake151 said before, Linux is open source, so there isn't a problem. 70.69.11.9007:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can the GPL KDE Interface be copyrighted? I'm really sure that this is only a tweaked version of the popular free open sourceXandros which we have on our other computers at home. --RaviC16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the product is copyrighted, we need to take this up at the Village Pump. If it is a problem to have a photograph of a device, we would need to remove every photo of nearly every object. --Midnightcomm21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the interface is just KDE, open source.69.113.41.194
Keep as the screenshot is of a GPL applicaton, and the design of the computer does not qualify for copyright.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Duchamp was French and died 1968. {{PD-US}} not applicable to non-U.S. works, and furthermore, exhibition is not publication. Lupo13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the rule, Lupo. ;o) I carefully studied this case before uploading this image. If you read the description, you can see that this work was first published in USA in 1913 at the Armory Show in New York (the artist was refused publication in France). Since that time, it is in USA, and is now in permanent display at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This work is a US work, even if the author was French at the time of publication. Actually it may never have been published in France. The only requirement for {{PD-US}} is Works published in the U.S. before 1923. There is no requirement on the nationality of the author. So I think that this might be borderline, but is within our actual accepted rules for publication. This is the same case as Image:Duchamp Fountaine.jpg which was uploaded before. Yann18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Duchamp Fountaine photo was an actual US print publication; are you arguing that the first public display of an artwork is the equivilent of a first publication? -- Infrogmation23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yann: as you probably have found out by now, "exhibition" (or "public display") is not "publication" according to U.S. law. See 17 USC 101, definition of "publication": ... A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. ... (emphasis mine). You would need to find evidence that the work was published before 1923. And note that Hirtle's footnote 6 indicates that this definition essentially already held under the old 1909 law. (It also speaks of copies.) Lupo07:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I misundertood the requirements for paintings. I understand now that public display does not mean publication. I deleted this image. Yann11:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept – Obviously not the same file, this is a version in another (and, generally, better!) format. The PNG version has been marked with {{SupersededSVG}}.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I had a look and it appears that this is a vertically cropped version of this image from the American National archives (NARA) and the following applies:
Looks like NARA has one of those systems that resets after each search so that you can't link back to a page, so the above link doesn't work the image can be found on the NARA site by searching the term "289th Infantry Regiment" and as (ARC Identifier:531244)(Local Identifier:111-SC-199406)KTo28820:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have an reference URL format, which the NARA-image tag uses. I added the ID to the tag on the image (and move the template up). Changed to PD-USGov-Military-Army, since that is what the NARA source says (and what the permission statement says as well). KeepCarl Lindberg03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete The user can't have taken 96 photographs of such professional quality and variety. I see a space shuttle, a wind turbine, a skydiver, and a tropical beach for example. This maybe a simple scan or copy of a postcard, and the uploader may mistakenly think that's his own work, while the image is actually copyrighted and scanning it will not make it his work. Maxim(talk)14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image is used on nl: wikipedia on an article that read like an advert for new research (see nl:23plusone) for which the results have recently been published. Even if the uploader is part of the researchgroup, it is hard to believe that the images are all copyrighted by him. Deadstar (msg) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that it's licensed under GFDL. The source says that it's made by UM Katowice and Gazeta Wyborcza, but Gazeta Wyborcza is a commercial newspaper and UM Katowice gave us permissions only for aerial photos from one gallery, which the picture in question doesn't belong to. In the picture we can see "Konior Studio", which probably means that the owner of it is an architect's office. I don't think that they gave us permissions, so it's rather a copyvio. Herr Kriss20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
British first edtion:ADVENTURES IN TOYLAND. Blackie. [1897] First edition. By Edith King Hall. `Little girl' in toyshop, meets animated toys, white rabbit etc wakes up to find it was all a dream . Small 4to, 20cm. 152pp. Colour plates, b & w illus by Alice B Woodward. Rubbed and shaken, a good copy. Marchpane Ltd [93]
USA first edition:EDITH KING HALL: ADVENTURES IN TOYLAND. New York, Boston H.M. Caldwell Company (1906). Blue cloth, color onlay illustration on front civer.Lettered in white. Edges lightly rubbed. Spine lettering almost lost. Small chip from cover illustration. One of the "Six to Sixteen Series". Illustrated throughout in black and white by Alice B. Woodward. Contains nine stories.[94]
CommentI'm not understanding...these images were published in a book prior to 1923. Are you saying that the text is free but the images are not? I got it from Project Gutenberg and I think that they are pretty reliable. The images are being used on Wikisource-en to illustrate the text. FloNight♥♥♥18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I'm not sure what the problem is. According to my source, Project Gutenberg, the book Adventures in Toyland was published in the United States in 1900 by Henry Altemus Company making it eligible for a free lic, I think. Am I missing something? FloNight♥♥♥18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the problem is, that this is - originally - a British book, written and illustrated by British women and first published in 1897 by en:Blackie and Son Limited, Glasgow, Scotland. (according to the bookseller, specialized in old children's books). All these details might not be important in the USA, but for Europe this might be problematic. Greetings Mutter Erde19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was already aware of this information but do not see why it makes it ineligible for inclusion on Commons. My understanding is that the lic I used is a valid lic for use on Commons and Wikisource for this situation. FloNight♥♥♥19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these British illustrations are PD only in the U.S. (pre-1923 applies only to the U.S.), but not in their source country, the UK. Commons requires that works be PD in both the U.S. and in the source country. Lupo21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see a chance, that commons accepts a warning, that only people on en can work with these nice pics? But in any case someone should add the illustrator's name. It´s Woodward's artwork, that should be mentioned. That would be fair, more fair than Gutenberg did. Greetings Mutter Erde21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Striking my keep vote. These are low quality images (scans from an old book) and not really worth putting the effort into finding a way to keep them. If they were not already being used on an Wikisource entry I wouldn't have bothered to make an argument to keep them here. I truly thought that Wikisource and Commons inclusion criteria was the same since Wikisource does not regularly have images uploaded there but instead they are uploaded here. FloNight♥♥♥14:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know...I have email notification for pages on my watchlist...it caused a massive flood of emails!!! I'm going to move the images to Wikisource today per the discussion there. After that they can be deleted here. Thanks for you for helping sort this out. Hopefully updating the Wikisource policy will help the next time this issue comes up in Commons. FloNight♥♥♥12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's under a license, but I don't see any source proving that, the only description given is: " Imagen del grupo Beat Crusaders disponible en YouTube" Franczeska20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it this is a derivative work this image. Whilst looking for categories for this image, I found the instruction in the Star Wars page that masks and costumes have no place on Commons. --KTo28820:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite that old, (looks some 20 years later to me) but yes, as Hubble died in 1953, clearly predates the creation of NASA. -- Infrogmation04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NASA page [98] clearly says it is not a NASA image. Invalid tag; unless image is doccumented to be public domain for some other reason, delete. -- Infrogmation04:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? Actually I've just come across this photo searching for something to illustrate "reading" and/or "being educated". (I've only opened this discussion because I wondered if the license is not okay.) It's the best picture I've found on Commons. Maybe there are better ones, but then they're not categorized well. Keep. --Ibn Battuta05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cuando uno no esta de acuerdo en la forma en que una persona lleva un sitio como este, lo mejor que puede hacer, es irse... asi que, me despido, esperando mejor ocasión para seguir colaborando con un proyecto que considero apasionante, pero que los sofocones que me da esa persona no me compensan el tiempo que le resto a mi mujer y a mi hija.
Translation: "When [some]one is not in agreement with the way a person runs a site like this, the best that can be done, is to go... so, I say good-bye, waiting for a better occasion to keep collaborating with a project I consider passionate [feel strongly about], but the suffocatings that person gives me do not balance the time that I take away from my wife and daughter. I lament greatly having to go, but I believe it is the best I can do. --MwAce" -Nard17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete: as seen on english wikipedia, original author has requested its deletion, and this map is a derivative work of a copyrighted work (cf [99]). Yggdras13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture is very likely cropped from [100][101] "Political History of Poland" published in 1917 [102] by Edward Henry Lewinski-Corwin (1885-1953) [103]. Thus, the author is not yet dead for 70 years. --Matthead07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the first link provides a subtile comment: The first known globe to mention the name of America, 1510. Just because an author published some images in 1917 does not mean he has the copyright on them. --32X17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a 2D rendering of the map on the 3D globe. It could be drawn in many different ways. There are numerous projections he could have used. Estreicher's drawing is not a slavish copy of the 3D globe; it is a derivative of a PD work (the globe), and as a derivative it is eligible for its own copyright. Lupo09:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
en:Globus Jagellonicus is not nearly as special as Estreicher wanted to make believe, as it resembles the en:Hunt-Lenox Globe. Also, I can not see at all where it "mention the name of America", which has been introduced in 1507 by Martin Waldseemüller. Please point me to it. Its roughly shows the continents, big deal, 18 years after they've been discovered, and maps had been published. South America is labelled "Terra de Brazil - Mondus Novus Terra Sanctae Crucis". The problem is, bluntly put, that Poles want to make believe they've discovered America - see en:Jan z Kolna. Besides, the author of the book Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin is a specialist in public health. He was promoting Polish views during World War I in the US. --Matthead05:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Regardless of the truth of the point it attempts to make, the fact is that it's a derivative work introducing significant value-added elements which are still in copyright in the US. Dcoetzee05:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. As above, not really a personal photo, and even if it were, orphaned personal photos aren't permitted. Dcoetzee05:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This SVG file might have been created by jmtrivial who intends to release this his work to GFDL (if vectorization/conversion to SVG is copyrightable at all), but the original UCK Logo is hardly free, at least, this page makes no assertion about that, and the en: page listed as source marks this as a fair-use (non-free) logo --Mormegil19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Coats of arms are not automatically public domain, particularly those not operated by any established government. English Wikipedia's claim of fair use is correct. Dcoetzee05:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is my property, but I uploaded it by mistake from my computer because it had a name similar to another of my image files. It was not my intention to upload it. Please delete it.
By Dutch law the person of who a picture is taken has the right to request the removal of a picture of themselves if the request it. This is called w:nl:Portretrecht. The person in this picture w:nl:Tamara Seur has requested formally this OTRS:2007110910017021. After consultation internally with other core people of the NL wikipedia and w:en:Mike Godwin, WMF legal consul, it is decided that Tamara Seur indeed has the right to have here picture removed if that is here wish. This process is only to make clear why this image will be deleted. The deletion itself is not up for discussion because is a legal obligation to do so.--Walter15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't personality rights laws exclude celebrities? Unless this is a foundation action, the community can and should be able to present objections. -Nard17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no problem for objections to be given, that is why this is listed here and not deleted directly so its removal can be transparent. --Walter23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most Wikipedia editors prefer a publicity type photo to illustrate a person. Perhaps she could be asked to provide one under a free license. --Simonxag02:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted, {{screenshot}}. Other uploads from the same user (also deleted) confirm that this is indeed a screenshot of a detail of the interface of the proprietary Microsoft Word software. —LX (talk, contribs)20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep this and any similar photos that are free licenced and actually used on user pages. Image description could have been better (I've improved it), otherwise nothing wrong with it that I can see. -- Infrogmation04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and any similar photos that are free licenced and actually used on user pages. Image description could have been better (I've improved it), otherwise nothing wrong with it that I can see. -- Infrogmation04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the user wishes to free licence of a photo of himself in his travels in locations he considers interesting and use them on his user page, I don't see reason to object. -- Infrogmation04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably get rid of this photograph. This summer, in an effort to improve all of the "body part' articles I had invited a friend who is a model to allow me to photograph his body. At the time, the body part articles were littered with camera phone cock shots and the chest of every due and bro who thought their muscles were encyclopedic. The results were these body parts for those articles. Admittedly, this particular photo was shunned by every project. I don't expect it will ever be used, so we can probably delete it unless a project has a use for it.. --DavidShankbone15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think drawings in anatomy books should be decent enough. This is closer to pornography then to medical photo. --Alex:D22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I agree with Alex:D... but, that's a reason not to use it in the article... the Commons is a place to have more images and to be a repository for this type of image. With no copyright issues... an image of a model's penis by a professional photographer should not be deleted. We don't delete images from the Commons just because they are not the best images and therefore don't make it into the articles... this could be a great image for penis, but we choose to use the less flashy medical drawing for a variety of reasons. 71.185.168.9908:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright issue is not the only limit. Here's a quote from the help pages: "Files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." Now, where would this erection picture fit in a Wikimedia project? AdiJapan12:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At Czech Wikipedia was this circumcised penis often used for vandalism, but it isn´t problem of the image which has encyclopedic value. --Dezidor22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it could be useful in the sexuality portal, it could be useful to a university student to include in an assignment on human biology, artistic nudity, the male body, human physiology, the anus, the penenium the scrotum, the penis, body hair, physchology, human sexuality, sociology, cultural anthropology, come on its just a dick and balls half of us have one, why are people so affraid look down your pants you might have one!!!71.142.74.13221:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least parts of this photo are not PD due to the fact that it is showing cover photos of John Coltrane recordings, e.g. en:A Love Supreme. So it does not really matter that the photo was done by some government employee, the cover photos were not. And for sure you cannot call them de:Beiwerk, without the covers it would just be a piano. Dr. Shaggeman23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shaggerman did not add this request to the main page... So I do it. One month later. --81.48.205.10513:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Even if it's obviously a derivative (so speedy deletion).[reply]
This image is part of an incomplete series of progress bar images (see below). Therefore it's unusable. Not used. Equivalent image is Image:3von10.png. --TM 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC) --TM13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The others could have easily been created, however, since these are not used and there are suitable replacements, I see no reason to keep them. →Rocket°°°08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
DeleteAs an exception, normally the given reasons are against our deletion guidelines. But in this case we have zero usable information. --GeorgHH15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent unpleasant events associated with my account, I would like to request that all of my images be removed without delays. Your swift cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. MarkMarek16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way to look at it, the other way is that there was an admin on a power trip who blocked me while I was fighting back a vandal. That is not the point of my post here, though. I would appreciate if my request was honored. Thank you for your time. MarkMarek18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The free licenses that are used here are not revocable. It might help if we were presented with a list of the relevant pictures and so could see what we are being asked to delete. I've managed to look at a couple (and they look quite good). I don't know anything about the underlying dispute and I don't think it's actually relevant (but I'm sorry to hear Mark's been having a rough time). --Simonxag23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Simonxag said. Sorry you had some problem on en:Wikipedia, but I don't see how that effects your Commons uploads, which seem to be free licenced and potentially useful. -- Infrogmation04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should respect the wishes of the author. If these had been images uploaded from Flikr, and the author subsequently changed the permissions attached, we would remove such images however useful they were. We should do no less for a member of our own community. KTo28811:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We might but that would depend on circumstances. Unlike Flickr, licenses are very clearly explained in the Commons, including the fact that they are permanent.--Simonxag02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only is this ineligible for copyright (text in a general typeface, the mirrored B does not change that), it is also not the official logo. It differs from the official logo in color and typeface (see here). As an aside: I think, for the reasons given above, that the official logo is free of copyright restrictions as well. Couldn't we upload that instead of this fan-made version? --rimshottalk14:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? As I said, it doesn't even match the official logo, which is a registered trademark. Secondly, please do not confuse trademark and copyright issues - even it is trademarked, it can still be free of copyright restrictions. --rimshottalk19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (formally), as it is not eligible for copyright. But ideally, we would want a color-neutral version with transparency. I have created one and uploaded it to Image:ABBA logo.png, so this instance of the image should probably be removed after all. - Cyrus XIII00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. The image has been deleted on "de" because it should be placed on Commons to start with, not for lack of permission.
In Nov 2006, Beate Klarsfeld (Paris) gave me permission via e-mail to take any photograph from her web pages for re-use on wikipedia. This is quoted on discussion page. The photographer is called Klarsfeld. So what is the point in this deletion request? --Sleepingbeauty119:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The title of the 1893 publication this was scanned from is listed on the image page. I am inclined to accept the uploader's copyright claim here unless reason is presented not to. -- Infrogmation05:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, did anyone actually look at the image? It has the e-bay "camera" icon... was uploaded by en:User:Vsmith on September 20, 2005 at en-WP, with a claim of "Enargite crystals on pyrite from Butte, Montana. Sample ~2 cm across. From my collection, image released by photographer." and tagged GFDL. So far so good, but that e-bay icon is a bit disturbing... Lupo11:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening nomination for deletion then. Original uploader on en:Wikipedia seems to still be active there; I have alerted them to this discussion on their talk page on en:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, this is a picture of an enargite specimen in my collection. I purchased it on ebay and the seller released the image rights to me at the time. The image was hosted by ebay and thus their logo is there, I must admit that I don't recall noticing the logo when I added it - at the least the camera icon should have been removed. I still have the specimen and the image as well as the releasing e-mail (I think, somewhere on my hard drive) so I can redo or rephotograph it if need be. The creedite sample is mine also and from the same source. Well commons won't keep me logged in long enough to save this - satellite access problems - contact me on en:wiki vsmith 66.82.9.7417:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the author wishes to present a new photograph that's fine. One from an ebay auction, even with the logo cropped, should not be acceptable to the community. -Nard04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A picture showing the use of an incontinence pad would be rather useful, but with no description and a license that may be worthless ("recovered" picture), it needs to go. --Simonxag02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a specialist of Nip/Tuck, but I had the same feeling. FYI, this image is also on Vikidia there with reference to commons, and will be deleted there if it is here. --GaAs1167115:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide proof that this photo falls under "No copyright claimed for State Documents ... and news and ... incidents and data." --ALE! ¿…?22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photo was in en wikipedia and is written: This is a photo of a former navy ship and thus is not copywritten. Other grecian ship have the same reason--151.32.195.8409:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is my understanding that cc-by-sa and gfdl are incompatible, but cc-by does not require re-users to accept the same free license. (Indeed, cc-by images can even be made fully copyrighted by re-users, if the derivative is different enough to have its own copyright). cc-by should be one-way compatible with GFDL in the manner used in this photograph. -Nard13:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment If anything I'd keep Floor plan and delete Floorplan and move everything over, however that would be a bit of a hassle, both spellings are reasonable search terms, the sensible thing to do would be to keep both and redirect one to the other with keeping Floorplans as it is and redirecting Floor plan being the easiest option.KTo28823:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK Italian law that might have restricted the copyright to 20 years is overruled by the EU law extending the copyright to 70 years. ALE! ¿…?10:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've been over this before. The EU "law" is a directive to member states, but is not actually binding. Furthermore, this appears to be an Italian government image, and we've also established that the Italian government has the right to disclaim the copyright on its own images. -Nard13:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Description makes no secret that this image is lifted from a commercial site, uploader makes no assertion of authorship to justify being able license the under the license the image has been loaded under. It may possibly meet the fair use conditions of English Wikipedia where it was originally loaded but I believe that keeping this image runs contrary to Commons policy.
Additionally even if this image was of an item of clothing owned by the uploader and taken with his own camera, this image may infringe designers copyright. Although clothing is utilitarian, the eye and mouth design to suggest a shark are not, if these elements were removed, could this item of clothing be identified as being by this designer (I suggest not). However if the eye and mouth motif were removed and placed on a generic plain item of clothing, would the motifs be strong enough to create in the mind of the onlooker that such item was the work of this designer? I would contend that it would. It is the non utilitarian element of this item of clothing which distinguishes it from the myriad other hoodies available and as such this image infringes the copyright of Bape. KTo28801:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to withdraw this. A source has been added that seemingly indicates that the permission would be of the order of expired copyright etc., and a description is easy enough to apply. On further thought, deletion request probably wasnt the best avenue (a tagging of "no source" would have been better) Sorry for any inconveniences. --[[Anonymous Dissident]]07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Yes it may possibly be a photo of a cross dressing exhibitionist, there are some others like this which are even more explicit, doesn't mean its not potentially useful, in an article on for example cross dressing. KTo28808:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-dressing might be an interesting category. But is it more sexual behaviour, fashion oder carnival or all of that?
Comment Subject of photo died in 1916, having lived in Nicaragua, Chile, and El Salvador. What is copyright law in those countries? If 1916 or earlier is automatically PD in all three countries, keep. If original source is identified and determined to be PD, keep. Otherwise delete. -- Infrogmation15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only the subject dies in 1916, the photographer also might already have died, and even is he didn't the photo is PD because was taken more than 75 years ago. 'KEEP -- JohnManuel02:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's visually derived from a different source, in intent this is obviously meant to be a copy of the logo for the Indianapolis Colts, and as such is not meaningfully licensable under a free license. --24.250.193.24121:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's from an ancient Czech coat of arms. The more modern copyright claimed to be violated is therefore derivative of THIS, and is void. -Nard01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated on en.wikipedia, this is a trademark problem not a copyright issue. The original source of the horseshoe is Image:Héraldique meuble Fer à cheval.svg which was created for a completely separate project that has nothing to do with the NFL or Americans. Copyright protects works from being copied, reproduced, modified, it doesn't prevent people from creating similar pieces of work based on something else. Horseshoes have existed for much longer than the USA (perhaps 2000 years older), so the idea of drawing a horseshoe isn't copyrighted by the Indianapolis Colts. Jackaranga14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bull. You created it to get an Indianapolis Colts userbox image. You created it to make a bunch of pretty userboxes on en. The entire "derived from a free source" angle is an untested legal argument to get around the restriction that we don't allow non-free images in the user namespace. Wikipedia does not exist so that you can advance interesting new interpretations of copyright law, and no caselaw precedents that I am aware of defend this use. It is an untested definition of free content that is clearly made not for encyclopedic purpose but in the name of rules-lawyering. This is an utterly crap justification, and it is one that cannot be meaningfully made in pursuit of the project's goals regarding free content - the blue horseshoe logo is not free in any meaningful sense. 24.250.193.24115:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you're talking about falls under the realm of trademark law, not copyright law. Trademarks not our concern here at Commons. And as Lupo says, it's really only an issue if a competing football franchise were to use the image as their logo, or perhaps even if Wikimedia were to start making and selling Colts merchandise using it (but that might be a piracy/licensing issue instead). howcheng {chat}01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum: Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and that our use of this image in the Colts userbox on en-WP violates some law or infringes on the Colts franchise's rights somehow. In that case, the proper course of action is to remove the image from the userbox, not to delete image, which could potentially be used for some other purpose. howcheng {chat}17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A horseshoe is a simple stock shape and not copyrightable at all, and neither is the coloring. Furthermore, please note that the rendering in Image:Blue horseshoe.svg differs significantly from the Colts' logo. At the very utmost there might be a trademark issue ifImage:Blue horseshoe.svg were used by a competing American football franchise as their logo or other identifying symbol. But that's outside of copyright concerns, and it is not used as such,[107] and even if it were, it wouldn't be our problem as we are not an American football franchise. Lupo23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, EvanS, am the original uploader and author of this image, and now I am requesting it for deletion. Reason 1: I would like to re-upload this image under a different name. Reason 2: Although I am the author of this image, it does not show up in my Commons gallery because it was copied from Wikipedia. I would re-upload this image on my Commons account. EvanS22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I'd chastise you for failing to search the version history for vandalism removing the license (which there is), but the image is also unused in any of the projects (de.wiki has a different file locally with the same name). No need to hang onto an unused personal photo. -Nard02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
berlin.spd.de states "Von allen Berliner SPD-Abgeordneten, den Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten für die Wahl am 17. September sowie vielen Landesvorstandsmitgliedern bieten wir Ihnen Porträtsfotos zum Download an", i.e. this permission also counts for the picture of Franziska Drohsel as she is a member of the managing commitee in the Social Democratic Party of Berlin. --DrFrank 12:40, 27 November 2007
No sufficient permission, see [108]: Die ausdrücklich zum Download angebotenen Fotos und Grafiken können für Pressezwecke unentgeltlich genutzt werden. Eine Verwendung in Veröffentlichungen konkurrierender Parteien ist nicht gestattet. Translation: Fotos and graphics offered explicitly for downloading can be used for media purposes without charge. Use in publications of competing parties is not allowed. --SCPS18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This appears to be an image from Google Earth, not NASA. It is identical to Googe Earth at "Itezhi-Tezhi Dam" lat=-15.7652777778, lon=26.0180555556 Googlerex00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. It really looks like the image at Google Earth. Since there is no link to proove that it is a NASA-image, deleted until counterevidence. Cecil19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is a very bad crop from a insignia of which we now have a much better version at Image:STS-121 patch.png --TheDJ20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Resim http://www.balabancik.com adlı siteden Vesgar adlı kişiye aittir means The image belongs to the user named Vesgar from http://www.balabancik.com. However I couldn't understand anything about two license. The original image was uploaded with 2 licenses on tr.wikipedia. And I upload it with tools. So there is a mistake here. --Maderibeyza17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Need to close this. I have kept with the more restrictive permission (can't read the website but there is a copyright notice). MichaelMaggs13:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was used in several NASA articles, but all without statement of origin. It seems to be copyright MDRobotics. It is featured in the CSA gallery as "Courtesy MDRobotics" and judging from their gallery notices the image falls under a non-commercial license, much like ESA and JAXA licenses. The hand picture is a crop of the first image. TheDJ21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a suggestion? The images will be more-a-less irrelevant after Dextre is launched in a few weeks on STS-123, as we'll have photographs of it on-orbit. Suggest we keep the images 'till then, at which point better, actual photos can replace them. Colds7ream12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Under "Farms in Xland" uploaders have catgorized images of almost all objects that also (and better) can be subsumed under "agriculture". For farm buildings more specific categories are afforded. Depending to history and conditions of farming in various contries, in some countries "farmhouses" is better, in other countries "farm buildings". It also can be "farm buildings" with subcategories. Where the pictures of barns show traditional barns, I'd prefer to subsume barns or the category "Barns in Xland" under "Farmhouses in Xland".--Ulamm22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -
this whole Farmhouse thing is a very strange category. It would rather be that one that could be deleted. So IF one would want a rather detailed category like "farmhouses", it would rather be a subcategory of "farms".
Secondly: it makes NO sense whatsoever, to move a picture form a category, and put it in a (wrong) subcategory AND a parent category... [110] it seems that you're missing the entire categorization concept then and something is seriously wrong. Some strange things have been done: a pic with a farmhouse, a barn, the farm grounds, some animals, the farmer is an archetypal image of a farm. So that's where it belong. See also the remarks of user:Royalbroil[111]
Thirdly: a valid category tree like farms should NOT be just emptied and destroyed before putting the deletion template. It will do fine without destroying the work of other people and just tagging it with the request template.
Oppose - This category should remain for pictures that contain numerous structures commonly found on a farm. For example, any picture at least two of the following: a barn, silo, farmhouse, and/or shed belong in this category. Contributors can add optional categories if appropriate. So if a silo is prominent, the contributor has the option of adding the image to the silo category, farm category, or both. This category should be a child of the agriculture category and a parent of any of the previously mentioned categories. Royalbroil01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that we all can agree that the word farm is a wide definition that covers many aspects, and I can understand that some people find the definition too wide. In that category, there is possibly space for subcategories such as farmhouses, barns, stables, silo's, the typical gates, entrances, fences, bell towers (angelus) and other architectural details ... etc. But the deeper one categorizes, the more problems one is going to have. If one looks to the pictures of Category:Fiefdoms in Ingelmunster, a very old farm, one can see a potential wide collection, none of them being the actual farmhouse as it is hidden as private territory. In fact, for many old farms, especially in Europe, the most characteristic elements of the farms that remain contain still many elements in which the farmhouse itself is only a small aspect. Today, most farms are only containing the "postcard" type of pictures that shows mainly the farmhouse (which is a debatable term as the older ones contain stables too). As we see a general trend towards more encyclopedic and detailed pictures, the farmhouse category will be more and more contested as being too restrictive. Similarly, in Category:Ten Bogaerde, only one of the four pictures pertains to the farmhouse.
Anyway, as there is clearly a different view on this category scheme, a minimum of courtesy to the many people that put significant effort to that worldwide farm categorisation, is to generate clear definitions and documentation and bring it up in Commons:Categories_for_discussion before doing massive changes. --Foroa07:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re:Rimshot - I think that would be best: Close this request. I also think that the outcome of the discussion on the category page is that the category "Farms by country" is going to stay. Deadstar (msg) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Farms" is too ambiguous. It includes farmland, silos etc.. Especially in densely populated areas of Europe lots of farmhouses, which are documents of the regional cultural identity, are no more part of actual farming, but their photos have to be categorized as "Farmhouses". Media ought to be placed not in "Farms" but either in Category:Farm buildings in Austria or in Category:Agriculture in Austria. Very few will have to be have to be categorized in both. --Ulamm18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Special: This category contained one subcategory and three single photos. The photos have been transferred to the Category:Farmhouses in Germany or the Category:Agriculture in Germany, which are more specific. The subcategory presented one single object, which now is no more a farm, but an academy building in urban environment.
Prospective: If lots of new photos of farm buildings or farmland in Bavaria have to be categorized, more specific categories like "Bavarian single roof farms" and "Bavarian four-roof farms" (both as subcategories of Category:Farmhouses in Germany) and "Agriculture in Bavaria" (as subcategory of Category:Agriculture in Germany) ought to be created.
In general: Categorization cannot substitute a suggestive title and a good description. The ratio of categorization is to present photos to fellow wikipedians who can use them for their articles. And categorization shall help uploaders to present their photos near other photos of similar subject. Therefore categories have to be as well specifc as (potentially) large. And they have to be subsumed to larger supercategories.
I did not repeat it. I only noticed, that it had not been closed.
You and Limowreck move farm buildings from category "farm buildings" to category "farms", farmhouses from category "farmhouses" to category "farms", manors from category "manors" to category "farms", in a very destructive way.--Ulamm20:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The contents subsumable under "Farms" are quite various. For Portugal it mainly contained manors, different from most other countries. More specific than "Farms" are the categories "Farmhouses" and "Manors". Other aspects of farming are better to be categorized in "Agriculture" a few pictures have to be categorized in both, "agriculture" and a category of buildings.--Ulamm21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Almost all "farms" subsumed in Category:Farms in Portugal were manors, really. To avoid chaotical categorizations, uploaders have to be caused to decide, what they are showing, farmland or farm buildings or agricultural technique, and among the buildings ordinary farmhouses or manors or aother buildings.--Ulamm23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Farms" is too ambiguous. It includes farmland, silos etc.. Especially in densely populated areas of Europe lots of farmhouses, which are documents of the regional cultural identity, are no more part of actual farming, but their photos have to be categorized as "Farmhouses". Media ought to be placed not in "Farms" but either in Category:Farmhouses in Switzerland or in Category:Agriculture in Switzerland. Very few will have to be have to be categorized in both.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Under "farms", too many different objects have been subsumed, such as farmhouses, barns, fields, irrigation, special crops, animals. Uploaders ought to have to decide, what is shown by their photos. "Farmhouses" or 2farm buildings" is more specific than farmes. Other objects than buildings can be categorized as "aagriculture", at first. If a big number of any kind of object has been collected, new subcategories can be splitted from Category:Agriculture in the United States. --Ulamm21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This category should remain for pictures that contain numerous structures commonly found on a farm. For example, any picture at least two of the following: a barn, silo, farmhouse, and/or shed belong in this category. Contributors can add optional categories if appropriate. So if a silo is prominent, the contributor has the option of adding the image to the silo category, farm category, or both. This category should be a child of the agriculture category and a parent of any of the previously mentioned categories. Royalbroil01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Lupo, and because I interpret this as the user reserving rights we normally take (derivations, whatnot)... —Giggy09:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everything appears to be in order here. They look like candids to me. Saying they are "all thumbnails collected from the internet." is an assumption. Do you have any evidence of this? Dark journey01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, the Flickr user has thumbnail candids of Madonna, Queen Elizabeth, Brooke Shields, Angelina Jolie etc. Well, the picture of Glória Kalil (known only in Brazil) is copied from here. He really should be a very high profile photoghapher to take a picture like this one. And he has also thumbnail candids of celebrity animals! Please, just take a look at his album and it's pretty clear that the Flickr user, in good faith, has just made a gallery of pictures he likes. Dantadd✉02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everything appears to be in order here. They look like candids to me. Saying they are "all thumbnails collected from the internet." is an assumption. Do you have any evidence of this? Dark journey01:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, the Flickr user has thumbnail candids of Madonna, Queen Elizabeth, Brooke Shields, Angelina Jolie etc. Well, the picture of Glória Kalil (known only in Brazil) is copied from here. He really should be a very high profile photoghapher to take a picture like this one. And he has also thumbnail candids of celebrity animals! Please, just take a look at his album and it's pretty clear that the Flickr user, in good faith, has just made a gallery of pictures he likes, that's all. Dantadd✉02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if you look at the Flickr user's other pictures, some just have to be copied (the Queen opening the British Parliament, advertising images, posed celebs) & if some are then probably this is. --Simonxag02:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete of course. It would have been simpler to just overwrite the image with the corrected version, but it is fine either way. Sorry for the mistake I made in that image. Oleg Alexandrov03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable imagevio uploaded to Flickr with an inaccurate CC license: originally sourced to a blog, where it's credited as an AFP/Yahoo image (source). --Muchness10:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the user's uploads on Flickr seen to come from the same rugby site, so they're also rather dubious. RedCoat19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many less-clued-in users believe that scanning an image makes them "creator and copyright holder" with all rights to the scan. There's no apparent reason to believe someone calling himself "Robertcripp" is really Mike Collins. Heck, the description "Mike Collins art", not "My art", can equally be read to imply that he's not Mike Collins. Finally, uploader appears to have played license roulette with different American Gothic uploads from the same day - GFDL-self [112], PD-self [113], and fair use [114]. The real Collins is a professional, and can make a more clear, verifiable release via OTRS if he wants the image used; otherwise, Delete. --dave pape03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No usage in Wikimedia; low res photo of person's face with no explanation, only upload of editor not active in more than a year. -- Infrogmation05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my wife - she gave her verbal consent for publication. She does not have an email account and does not understand an English written consent. Is it really necessary to have an OTRS ticket to cover personality right for close relatives? I find that a bit exaggerated. It is also not the problem of the Website or it's publisher if a face is shown which is not covered with personality right consent anyway. --Mattes17:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But get your wife to write a consent note (she should just say what she's happy with and sign it) in whatever language she is fluent in, scan this and email it. --Simonxag23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image from good contributor, I have no reason to doubt. From happy facial expression, person photographed seems to be aware and not objecting to photograph; if some model release or similar ticket is really necessary in this context, I might have asked on the user talk page before requesting deletion. -- Infrogmation05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It´s from between 1939 and 1945. At that time there didn´t exist anything like a CC-license. So the photographer could not choose this license... And this foto isn´t PD either because the author can´t be dead for 70 years (and also hardly for 50 years). Chaddy07:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a en.wiki admin to take a look at Special:Undelete of that file, to check if there was any valid source prior to transference to Commons. If it's coming from any US governmental body, it may have been released under PD. Patríciamsg10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted: It would be really interesting, why you make normal deletion requests for pictures, where you could use a speedy delete, but then make speedy delete requests for pictures, which will not be deleted even with a normal request (superseded pics). --Cecil05:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep superseded picture. The user seems to have problems understanding the difference between a superseded picture and a duplicate. While he has stopped requesting speedy deletes for superseded and superseding pics, he now makes normal deletion requests for both, duplicates and superseded pics. First ones still can be deleted speedily, second ones should not be deleted (even this way). Cecil06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"Copyright 2006 H.J.Moyes All Rights Reserved." License granted by uploader, but nothing to say that thety are actually Moyes. --Simonxag02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only moved the image from en.wikipedia to commons. I am alerting User:Shoka at en.wikipedia, the uploader. Please hold deletion since Mr. Moys email address is at shoka.net there is a good chance it it the same person. --Inkwina08:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original uploader, and the owner of the photograph. Licence is clear. Wikipedia and the world may use this work under the terms of the GFDL as clearly indicated on the upload. I reserve the right to re-licence the work in any way I chose for any purpose. Same is true for all photographs of mine that I upload. The licence to Wikipedia is not an exclusive licence, nor need it be. Harry Moyes, harry@shoka.net, wikipedia user Shoka. No ID on Wikimedia.
Keep as per the message above it is now clear that the original uploader and the copyright holder are one and the same person.--Inkwina11:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image used to be under a free license (take my, the uploader's, word for it), but I think the substitution is a lot better and support the deletion request. --Ranveig09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was not accusing you of lying about the license. I took the picture because wanted to give certainty to the copyright status. I have been shelling a lot of popcorn lately! Royalbroil14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's not a permission to be photographed we are lacking but permission for the photographer to release the image under a CC licence and to post it here. The subjects may be happy that the photographer is taking a private image, but did they know that it was to be licensed for free public use? --MichaelMaggs07:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consent to being photographed can be implicit (if you smile at the camera in place of covering your face, you actually consent). Consent to have the image so taken published must be explicit, apart for a few cases listed by the law where the presence in a public place, or the fact of taking a public role, implies your agreement on going public, and therefore being published. Well, a bathtub is no such a place, actualy it stands in the most PRIVATE place of a home. If I go to a gay pride march, I am there to MANIFEST I am gay, or supportive of gay rights. I may not complain if someone takes a picture of me ad publishes it. It was me who made public myself in the first place. But if I kiss my boyfriend in a bathtub, I have the reasonable expectation that any such an image should be kept private, or that I am at least requested my consent/permission/release to do so.
Last but not least, I urge to stop taking pictures from Flickr portraying people. Most of them are uploaded without the minimal knowledge of copyright laws, by people who may publish images by other people and label them with a CC license without understanding well what it means.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep superseded picture. The user seems to have problems understanding the difference between a superseded picture and a duplicate. While he has stopped requesting speedy deletes for superseded and superseding pics, he now makes normal deletion requests for both, duplicates and superseded pics. First ones still can be deleted speedily, second ones should not be deleted (even this way). Cecil06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep superseded picture. The user seems to have problems understanding the difference between a superseded picture and a duplicate. While he has stopped requesting speedy deletes for superseded and superseding pics, he now makes normal deletion requests for both, duplicates and superseded pics. First ones still can be deleted speedily, second ones should not be deleted (even this way). Cecil06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is practically the same image:Image:Image:Image:Blason ville fr PuyVelay (HauteLoire).svg, no links o this page Karelj20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep superseded picture. The user seems to have problems understanding the difference between a superseded picture and a duplicate. While he has stopped requesting speedy deletes for superseded and superseding pics, he now makes normal deletion requests for both, duplicates and superseded pics. First ones still can be deleted speedily, second ones should not be deleted (even this way). Cecil06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any (current or future) project where these pictures could be used. It seems to me they're personal pictures and shouldn't be on Commons. --Manuel Menal15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this type of image could be usefull in articles about fetishism. There is no porn or genitalia showing and seems it would not be appropriate to remove this image when there are hundreds of women panty images.
Keep This is the CoA of a Netherlands "publiekrechtelijk lichaam" (public corporation). See the circular letter by the Netherlands Secretary of State for Home Affairs about the use of the CoAs: [115]. This image is definitely correctly licensed. Maybe the license tag isn't clear enough. Bouwe Brouwer14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The cited official notice (aimed at municipalities) explicitly includes Met betrekking tot bij Koninklijk besluit aan andere publiekrechtelijke lichamen verleende wapens geldt mutatis mutandis hetzelfde. (with regard to other coats of arms of public bodies the same applies (with some legal jargon added)). Can someone please change the template of the license to reflect this same right for all Dutch public bodies (evidently including the country). Arnoutf15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some concern that images created by the Chilean state are not automatically released into the Public Domain --Nick08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, but User:Ellengauthier has uploaded only images from Christophe Recoura, claiming she had the permission to do so. However, the large size of some of these images is not proof enough that she has some inside connection. At least Image:4586 MJA10010 C Recoura.jpg is indeed available at that size at [116] (the press kit of the museum). To clear this up, I have sent an e-mail to Mr. Recoura. If I don't get a response within a week, delete all uploads of User:Ellengauthier. Lupo14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, Keep. Received a response by Mr. Recoura, who confirms that "Ellen Gauthier" is working for Cultureespaces, Cultureespaces holds the rights to republish and relicense these images, and that moreover doing so is fine with him (the photographer). I'm forwarding this permission now to OTRS. Lupo16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It got deleted on Wikipedia (today) for being noncommercial, not because it was copied here, so I don't think it should be put back. Arthena20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and was apparently taken by the uploader. -- Lancini87
Could you please explaine me what is the problem with this picture, it was taken by me
actually the guy with the green t-shirt is me, its was my work, it hasnt any copyright
i know this isnt personal, i just want to know how can i fix the problems with this picture so it wont be deleted
thanks.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by201.166.50.144 (talk • contribs)
This violates Anne Rice's character copyright from the novel en:The Queen of The Damned and probably also that of the producers of the film of the same name. See Commons:Fan art. There is a perfectly good license on Flickr, but that merely handles the copyright of the artist who made this drawing. I marked this image as a copyvio and it was deleted only to be re-uploaded by the same editor who seems to believe what they read on Flickr. --Simonxag16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I watched the film and I haven't observed very much likeness between Akasha from the film and Akasha from the sketch. So I think it is a kind of an artictic variation about Akasha and everybody has a law to make an art be impresed by other art. It produces a new art... And it is the case of it. Elektron07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Rice has't rigth to the name Akasha because it is the Sanskrit very old word meaning "aether" in both its elemental and mythological senses, see here and here. The author of the sketch dosn't write that the sketch is showing Rice's Akasha. It was my intention to write this in description because I watched the film and I had a such association. Maybe it was my mistake... So I change the description and all will be perfect right. Regards :) Elektron06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2 references, give "Akasha" as ether or mythological space. This Akasha ain't either. She's a vampire queen, a new character created and named by Anne Rice. In fact she looks a lot like the character as portrayed in the movie. The picture is used to illustrate this same character on the Wikipedia, not some ancient mythological abstraction. Forget ancient names, loads of real people are called "Harry Potter", but that doesn't invalidate Rowling's copyright on her character. Copyright violation. Delete! --Simonxag12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, don't hurry, please... We should be careful and don't say such a strict opinion when thera are so many doubts... In my opinion the sketch is only a personification of that ancient abstraction. In some way a man is similar to every other man, a woman to every other woman. They usually have a trunk, two hands, two legs and a head. So there is nothing strange that the woman from the sketch can be in some way similar to Rowling's character. On the other hand we don't know the whole intention of the author. It is very unkind to judge sth when you have only undocumented suspision and without any strict evidence.
I tell you more: In my opinion the fact that Rolling took very rare uncient name does't mean that she has a right to take a control over it using in future... And it can be of course an egxample of an derivative work done by Rollings. But you have a point: it is a good idea to ilustrate the topic: Akasha using this personification. And I'll do this when our discussion is over... Best regards :) Elektron07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The webmaster is not the author of the photos. So he is NOT the owner of the copyright.
This permission sounds like a wikipedia only permission because you did not make clear that also commercial use and derivative works have to be allowed.
Keep If the permission is only for Wikipedia we can change the type of licence and the template of permission, but no delete photos--Gaetano5622:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Template talk:Base Naval and Commons talk:Licensing#Template:Base Naval. The webmaster's "permission" isn't worth the Bits spent to write it, and all images from that source, as well as {{Base Naval}} (which Gaetano created today based on that "permission") should be deleted. Sorry, Gaetano. Not exactly your fault, but that site cannot license these images, which are just collected from somewhere off the web or from magazines. The contributors there could license those photos they've taken themselves, but as there's no way to identify those, this site is off-limits for us. Lupo23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if worded better, the most that permission may do is allow use of the "database copyright" (if it even exists in Peru), i.e. the effort of putting together a particular collection. However we mainly need to know that each individual photo is public domain (or under a free license), and since the website was not the photographer, they probably don't know that (and cannot give that permission). So, unless Peruvian government works are public domain (doesn't appear to be the case), or evidence can be shown that the original photographer has released copyright (or permission can be obtained), then this photo (and others with the same tag) needs to be deleted. Carl Lindberg03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I' ve the permission of the webmaster and i've mentioned the site how says the webmaster
Why others would delete it?
By what reasoning are they public domain? I am presuming the webmasters did not take the photographs themselves. Rather, they seem to be Peruvian military or government photographs, which as far as I can tell would normally still be under copyright (the photographer would own the copyright, so the question of who took them is important). Did the government release them to the public domain (we would need a link or a statement), or is there a law that I missed which makes them public domain? Knowing where the photos came from originally would help quite a bit. Keep in mind that the webmasters may be able to use the photos in an educational context, which is often allowed as an exception to copyright, but commons is more restrictive than that. Carl Lindberg18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the webmaster gave me the permission and you think they aren't PD, may be we can change type of license and not delete it--Gaetano5614:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This picture was taken form the Peruvian Navy Archive, and the web master of {{Base Naval}} cannot give a "permission" of use for an image which is not his intellectual property. --Cloudaoc02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader on en:Wikipedia gave no source and licence of "Don't know". This should not have been transwikied to Commons to begin with. -- Infrogmation20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is certainly not out of scope seeing as there is an article about the singer on the Portuguese Wikipedia, however, the original source stated that the image came from her website without any proof of it being freely licenced. RedCoat16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, the description makes it clear this is a picture of the poster, not a picture that happens to have the poster in it--Simonxag02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that the chinese space administration gives this photo away for any use, commercial and also derivative works. ALE! ¿…?22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep I don't see any problem with that picture. For instance it can illustrate the fact that some people like to be nude at home. This picture is not pornographic. Commons should also accept some artistic pictures. This shot is no more useless than many paintings available on the site. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paintings cannot be compared with this picture on a "usefulness" criteria; I mean that paintings images hosted on Commons have an educational value, and represent artworks that belong to the World patrimony. Paintings are exhibited in museums, have celebrity and are commented by art specialists, this picture hasn't/isn't (as far as I know). Agelou14.jpg is artwork, and Aktfoto-4.jpg may be not (and then should probably get a RfD)... -- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar)11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I mean if I am for sth I have rigth to support it without declaring my intension. Am I rigth? I like this picture and I think it will be useful to describe some topics (e.g: act, sex, body, etc.) Elektron07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am already blocked (on my demand) and I have the full right to give my opinion on an argument I feel ridiculous. I don't judge the person, I judge the argument. --86.67.47.17512:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, « such a narrow conception of beauty is sad (even pathetic maybe...) » is definitely not an opinion on an argument, but on one's « conception of beauty » that you judge « narrow » and « pathetic ». And being blocked doesn't prevent your IP from being blocked too. guillom15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry then but it honeslty wasn't my purpose. I just think it's sad but I wasn't thinking about that person in particular nor a group of persons. Thinking such a thing is sad is IMO like any politician criticizing a decision of the opposition: the critic will be towards the idea/decision, not the persons (but I know it'd be considered as such). As for the risk of seeing my IP blocked, I'll be frank: this can't be a threat for me since it'd actually help me! --86.67.47.17516:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that some of those pictures are influence by the Gaoguin style.My personal opinion is that,for the moment,this picture have not problem.The problem always will be on the kind of mind and soul of every person that will see the picture,thanks.
PD:I don't see what kind of box she have between the legs.Meaby could be much better if the box can result a little bit more big.Thank you. ([[User talk:Vicond
Oh yes,sorry.The post-impressionist painter contemporary with Vincent van Gogh.If you want more specifically (on this case),the pictures of the natives of the Tahiti Island.Thanks ([[User talk:Vicond
And could you tell me why this one and not the rest of the nudes? I'm sure 90% of the nudes don't have any authorization. What's more, the photographer is apparently a quite famous artist in Netherlands (he's got an article on WP nl) so I guess such an artist doesn't post pictures in Flickr without models' authorizations! BTW why don't you contact him instead of assuming there's no authorization? --86.67.47.17516:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many nudes aren't identifiable, so the issue doesn't arise. Where it does, and the photo is taken in a private place, the model's permission should be obtained and registered with OTRS. I've no doubt there are other images on Commons that ought to have permission but don't; however, you should not be relying on mistakes elsewhere to argue for a mistake to be made here as well. What's the point of having these guidelines if they are going to be ignored in such an obvious case? --MichaelMaggs17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit you're right. But why didn't you answer to my last question? If you think the absence of authorization is the only (or main) reason of deletion, it would be more logical to start with a contact with the author in order to have this authorization. --86.67.47.17520:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These pseudo-arguements, which try to define a very thin line from Gauguin to these photgraphs made by someone, who finds his (cheap) models in Thailand, are very scary. The photo itself is hopelessly useless. --Herrick13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! sorry for my pseudo-arguements,but,you could explain me ,what's the utility of an image into a category named "Nude women" on wikimedia commons? Thanks. ([[User talk:Vicond
@Herrick: would you mean nude pictures are encyclopedicly useless? If the answer is yes, I'm sorry but I'd say you're pathetic. If the answer is no, then there's no point deleting that one and not others (aesthetic arguments can't be accepted because they are subjective, therefore contrary to neutrality on Commons) --86.67.47.17516:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So..... Yourself has said it.
for you (and commons I suppost)what means "utility" on this case?Why this image don't have utility and has to be erased?([[User talk:Vicond
@Vicond: It's one thing to illustrate the aura of erotique or the beautiful body of a man or a woman. I don't have any problems with good photos (in german: Aktfotografie; nude photography) like that. Helmut Newton's photos wouldn't harm anyone ;-) But's another question how you would describe this (Gaming (nude).jpg) picture? It's not a documentary photo. Maybe the photographer took it while the model takes a break. But would it useful to illustrate his working, her break, the MP3-Player, a game console? Not a all. There's nothing of aesthetic elements and quality in this picture. The only reason for uploading images like that could be to illustrate the minor work of this artist. And by the way: A look on your Contributions illustrates that your account refers only to on thing: discussions ;-) --Herrick07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is arrogant to say there's nothing of aesthetic elements. This is completely subjective since I personnally find it aesthetic (and the bad light anb noise make it great IMO). As for the "documentary" potential, I think it has been said above: some people like to be nude at home and do stuff that most people do dressed. Therefore I think this picture can illustrate those kind of life ways. And as you said it illustrate the work of this artist (again this is arrogant to say "minor work". Wikimedia is neutral, it doesn't have to judge what's great or not in an artist's work). Finally, your personal attack towards Vicond is useless and gratuitous and nonsense. He's free to discuss only if he wants it like that! --86.67.47.17507:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You call me arrogant and think that it would be a personal attack against a discussion troll or sockpuppet? Your're kidding. --Herrick08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfortunately not kidding. It'd be great if you could discuss and think before assuming things. I'm neither a troll nor a sockpuppet. Be informed before attacking. Thanks. --86.67.47.17508:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all the customers of your personal crusade for Peter Klashorst. Some of his photos are good and useful, but this refers me to my very last statement on Village pump. --Herrick09:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the photography is apparently a quite famous Dutch artist called Peter Klashorst. Therefore, the potential of this picture is also to illustrate his work. I hope some people will understand that! --86.67.47.17520:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So,you have any objetions with this?It's a valid argumment to delete the picture? Or meaby it's a valid argumment:"someone, who finds his (cheap) models in Thailand"????
([[User talk:Vicond
PD:I'm not sure what is your position now.
keep or delete?
Is only a nude of an Asian girl in a peaceful attitude "Gaming"
It's not the most "agresive nude of wiki".Wiki have others nudes that are most explicit and they have not problem.
What's the problem with this one in particular?
Do you know why you're confused? Because you're mixing my arguments (IP 86.67.47.175 or TwoWings) and Herrick's. When I wrote "@Herrick" it meant I was speaking/answering Herrick. --86.67.47.17506:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can see.No problem.Thanks for your defense. ([[User talk:Vicond
Keep but rename. Rama's comment sums it up. The price of the models have no bearing as a deletion rationale whatsoever. Just though I'd like to clarify that, we aren't going to delete images from poorer countries for that reason alone. A concept as controversial as ethics cannot have any real bearing in a deletion discussion. We of course do not accept any random nude image. This does not seem to be a random nude image given the artist (hence in project scope). If notable artists agree to release their art (nude or not) with a free license, all of it can be uploaded to commons. This is the very point why commons exist. We can mirror useful free images such as this one from flickr or LOC. Hard drives are cheep and deleting it won't win us any hard drive space.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above request from November, it's time to revisit it in light of changes in our understanding. ++Lar: t/c01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closure last time went against established policy per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The publication without consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what educational value the image has? As of right now, the image is used nowhere except in a gallery of Peter K's work on fr:wikibooks. Please suggest an article or appropriate non gallery usage to justify this claim. To me this is out of scope. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is identifiable and the photo was taken in a private place. Permission from the subject is needed. From COM:PEOPLE: "Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named." Pruneau (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option, Pruneau put it well. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herbytalk thyme12:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are images by a notable photographer, they don't appear to be pornographic (so age would not matter) and at this point we have no indication personality rights may have been violated. Honestly I don't like his work, but this is not about like or dislike.--Caranorn (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I forgot to strike my vote here, for various reasons explained I other related topics I no longer feel confident with voting at this time, be it Keep or Delete.--Caranorn (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information --Herbytalk thyme08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...15:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that a bedroom is not a private place? Or are you arguing that a private place becomes a public one when a photographer is present? Makes it difficult, then, to think of any place that you would accept as private. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I mean that "private place" doesn't really mean anything. A photographer working in his own flat wouldn't mean it's a private place. Haven't you ever seen a photo of a model in a bed? Would that mean it's a private place? No. So there's a big problem about that "private place" criteria. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, someone has decided to split the Klashorst deletion requests into several, separate deletion requests, which means the discussion has ended up all over the place. I think all the arguments in favour of deletion have been done to the death. Policy requires deletion. I will, however, copy-paste this refutation of every possible argument for keeping these (for all those reading this for the sixth time, sorry to spam every DR with the same crap, but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing, and doing this saves me time over refuting each argument individually). Enjoy the copypasta:
Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos: So was R@ygold and the swirl face guy, and we're not about to start hosting their picture collection. That someone has a huge collection of such pictures on his Flickr account means nothing at all. This would only be valid in the case of, say, the Suicide Girls -- a business that we can count upon to get the requisite documentation before publishing (and as a side-note, hire photographers with talent, as well, something Klashorst should consider).
Peter Klashorst is an artist: He's a painter, and possibly one that nobody would give a damn about if he hadn't got arrested for some rather unsavoury activity in Senegal some time ago. However good he is at painting, he is an amateur photographer. Or to put it less delicately, he's a not-quite-half-talented hack and it shows; even if he had an Uzi to his head I doubt that he'd be able to take a photo that wouldn't go down in flames at FPC like a skyscraper in New York (inb4 "so can you do better?" -- I don't have to be an expert on trains to tell you that a skateboard is not a train). He is certainly not an artistic or professional photographer. As such, we should apply the same standards to Klashorst as we would with anyone.
His pictures are of posed artists: Bullshit. We know exactly where he finds the girls he photographs (it's not like his penchant for prostitutes is a secret, guys). And this is, again, made less likely by the fact that the kind of people that rent studio models can, at the least, take a half-decent picture if their life depended on it. So again, feel free to compare Klashorst's works to some of our Suicide Girls, for example: the difference between Klashorst and a professional studio photographer is roughly the difference between the paper airplane I just folded and a B-52 Stratofortress.
These are not pornographic, so the age issue is irrelevant: An interesting position to take; try calling the party van and telling them that you have some nude pictures of under-age girls on your computer. Your end will be playing "mommies and daddies" in the prison showers with a fat, hairy fellow convict. Admit it: if these photos had any technical merit, they'd be soft-core porn. But we could even grant this premise and we'd still have the issue that there is no evidence that the models have given their consent for more-or-less unlimited publication of these pictures, so we don't even need to make this argument.
Commons is not censored: Well, yes it is actually. We don't host child pornography on Commons, for example. We also don't host copyright violations. We are as uncensored as we can be within our legal (and moral) obligations. This is not an argument in itself; it is hand-waving to try and distract people from the real issues at hand.
The related argument of This is a (possibly Senegalian Muslim) crusade to get rid of nudes from Commons: No, it's not. I am not a prude, nor do I really care to get rid of every nude from Commons. What I do care about is that we live up to our legal (and moral) obligations as codified in our policy on identifiable photographs of living people. Every one of these Klashorst photos fails our obligations on this count, and I'm damned if we should make an exception for Klashorst "becuz he's famous lol".
Keep I don't see any problem with that picture. For instance it can illustrate the fact that some people like to be nude at home. This picture is not pornographic. Commons should also accept some artistic pictures. This shot is no more useless than many paintings available on the site. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be used to illustrate an article about sexual festish, though I'm a bit dubious about it. The absence of a model release bothers me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think the picture has been taken (and shown on Flickr) without the knowledge of the model? And why is it suddenly a problem here and not for maybe 95% of the pictures of people on Commons? I know it's not an argument. That should mean most of the pictures of people should be deleted if they don't have an explicit authorization. But why is it suddenly a problem NOW and on this kind of picture? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge and acceptance of a wide diffusion are two whole different things. Why do you think photo magazines insist on having model releases for posed pictures? Of course the problem of model release is more critical when nude pictures are concerned. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the photography is apparently a quite famous Dutch artist called Peter Klashorst. Therefore, the potential of this picture is also to illustrate his work. I hope some people will understand that! --86.67.47.17520:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well within Project Scope of a free image repository as asserted above. Privacy isn't an issue as photo was taken by a famous artist to be published publicly. It is already posted publicly on flickr. If he (the artist) is posting it on flickr with a free license we should be really thanking him. -- Catちぃ？ 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep I don't see any problem with that picture. This picture is not pornographic. If we delete it we can delete most of the nude pictures on Commons. Moreover Commons should also accept some artistic pictures. This shot is no more useless than many paintings available on the site. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paintings cannot be compared with this picture on a "usefulness" criteria; I mean that paintings images hosted on Commons have an educational value, and represent artworks that belong to the World patrimony. Paintings are exhibited in museums, have celebrity and are commented by art specialists, this picture hasn't/isn't (as far as I know). -- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar)10:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say it's more educational. It's just part of a diversity of choice that Commons can deliver. What's more, Commons don't have a sole educational purpose. It can also give opportunities to find material for creation (collage...). In that way, this picture can be interesting. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a tasty pic of an Asean /Philippine? woman with a big natural bust. People which nowadays normally are "educated" by porn pics should see the difference between a real bust and that, what they commonly get. Nature beats them all. Mutter Erde12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this contemporary nude photography has no informational value, none has. It shows a naked body, without anything strictly pornographic. And it shows an Asian body, which is a minority on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first argument looks like an appeal to consequences to me. Yet I have no problems with that: pictures with no informative or educational value should not be stored on Commons, be they nude pictures or not. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into other people's mouth. That's dishonest and rude behaviour. The important criterion is pertinence to the Wikimedia projects. Nudity or absence thereof is irrelevant. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put word's in other people's mouth. I asked you a question because your first answer wasn't clear and you told me you maintained your answer. So it was logical to have such a conclusion. If it's not the way you think please answer my question. If you think a nude photo can be educational/informative, please tell me the reasons why you don't consider this one does since I really don't understand the difference! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the only objection is the subject matter, Keep. As it seems to have already been decided (at least by default) that images of nude women are not inherently out of scope, it would seem reasonable that Commons should have a fair selection of human variation within that category. If we already had, say, a good collection of photos of nude Philippino women of similar body type, several of which were of better resolution, I'd say we have no need for this one. Such doesn't seem to be the case. (BTW, I find the unfortunate title probably the most offensive aspect of this image. ) -- Infrogmation20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no obscenity in the picture but I admit I could have chosen another title (because it can be seen as obscenity). If it's the problem we can delete it and re-upload with another name. As for the quality, it's subjective. I think it's sad to have such a narrow way to think quality and aesthetic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TwoWings-- state your reasons for disagreement with other editors if you wish, but please do not belittle their opinions. Remember to deal with other editors with civility and respect when possible. -- Infrogmation07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's so sexy and the only reason i come to commons is to see nude and sexy pictures like that! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by71.34.25.156 (talk • contribs)
Keep - I believe the image is within the project's scope, and as TwoWings has articulated, "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, so it's not our role to judge based on it (except in really obvious cases, which this clearly isn't). Giggy\Talk06:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you finally tell me how the quality and value of your picture is covered by the project's scope? What's more COM:PS indicates "The quality of files should be as high as possible" > this doesn't mean we don't accept lower quality, it means we just prefer high quality. --86.67.47.17513:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. This old photo was a light-Test from 2004! I put in on speedy-deletion. Someone like you, who calls other users "coward", are not fit to be called a normal discussion partner. --Herrick13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't you answer before to that question then? (6 hours ago) you are not fit to be called a normal discussion partner > I agree that I'm not anymore because you just did everything you can to make me like that! If you calmly answered my first messages, I wouldn't have become so angry and agressive! And again: I apologized for some things, but YOU are unable to realize your mistakes and arrogance... Your behaviour calls hatred... --86.67.47.17514:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the photography is apparently a quite famous Dutch artist called Peter Klashorst. Therefore, the potential of this picture is also to illustrate his work. I hope some people will understand that! --86.67.47.17520:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Rama's comment sums it up. A concept as controversial as ethics cannot have any real bearing in a deletion discussion. We of course do not accept any random nude image. This does not seem to be a random nude image given the artist (hence in project scope). If notable artists agree to release their art (nude or not) with a free license, all of it can be uploaded to commons. This is the very point why commons exist. We can mirror useful free images such as this one from flickr or LOC. Hard drives are cheep and deleting it won't win us any hard drive space.
In a nutshell I see no valid reason for a delete. I however do see a valid argument to rename so I will request the uploader to choose a more descriptive image file name (and delete this copy later on).
I am unsure how to make this kind of challenge there. Those with Yahoo! account can use the same usernames and passwords to get into Flickr.--Jusjih03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking though that Flickr user's photos, I see no reason at all to doubt that the Flickr user had taken that image. Camera model from the EXIF data matches up with other of his photos, and there are more images of the same woman among his photos. The image is unused, though, and the gaudy border may make it unlikely that it ever will be used, so I won't shed a tear if it is deleted all the same. Lupo13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted:They are protected by International Law through Intellectual Property Protection Treaties and must not be used or reproduced without express permission.Cecil19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is the same image here in SVG. format:Image:Blason ville de BadenBaden (BadenWurtemberg).svg, no links to this page Karelj20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not really, since the other existing image is of very bad quality. That's why I got into producing an alternative with Vector graphics. But I'm not that hung up on it. Do whatever you want, I've quit Wikipedia anyway. --Gernheim09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It has come to my attention that this animation is inaccurate in depicting steradians, and should thus be deleted. I didn't have much information to work on when I made this image, so it's not surprising that it's incorrect --Oni Lukos03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category is useless and disturbs the organization of the Commons database. SVG files have a .svg extension, therefore no specific structure is needed to find them. --Juiced lemon15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you want to delete the category. Many people like the convenience of finding SVG maps quickly in one category tree, rather than wading through many other types of maps in order to find SVG maps. Images can be categorized in more than one category. --Timeshifter15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People don't need to find SVG maps in the topics structure. In this structure, people can find the categories or galleries which match the searched subjects, and they'll select the best media files, choosing between various media types, SVG files included.
Wikimedia Commons have no policy to favour SVG files, but a policy to favour good quality files. Therefore, we must give to people the occasion to choose the best quality, in particular when talentless illustrators have uploaded pathetic SVG files.
More, every SVG file has a “.svg” filename extension: hence, every SVG file can be easily tagged with a bot, in order to find it with the catscan tool. So, Category:SVG maps is the parent category of an unclassified and useless structure, which disturbs the classification process and the browsing in the Commons database.
I dislike SVG files sometimes too. But I also like some of them. I can do basic image editing in other formats besides SVG. I would like to learn to create and edit SVG images. So SVG categories help in finding similar images to model from. I think the SVG image use in MediaWiki software is flawed, but it is still very useful. I dislike that only PNG images are used to substitute for the SVG images. The MediaWiki software converts SVG images to PNG images before showing them in wikipedia articles. Because most browsers can't view SVG images. I wish there was an option to use GIF image substitution for low-color graphics. --Timeshifter04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find these categories useful. BTW, there are other such categories, such as Category:SVG flags or Category:SVG coats of arms. If I wanted to create a new SVG map (or flag, or COA, or...) I'd be grateful to have a way to find some already existing SVG map, flag, or COA upon which to base my work on. Otherwise I'd have to trace the paths again myself. These categories help me to find such already existing SVG drawings. Lupo23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this deletion request while looking for SVG maps. Knowing a little bit about Commons, I of course expected to find a category for SVG Maps, and did indeed, though it was a little shocking to see that there was an extant deletion request for it. That said, SVG is unique and interesting as an image format because it's a vector rather than raster format. Perhaps the category should really be something like Category:Native vector maps or something of the sort. -Harmil21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. This category is really usefull and is probably one of the most important categories here in Commons (in my opinion) and it can save a lot of time when you're looking for an SVG map, this helped me create a lot of maps (1,; 2 for example). --escondites10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is absurd. It "disturbs the organization of the Commons database"? The category provides an easy way to find SVG maps, without interfering with any other category. I can find images with an SVG extension manually, but there's no perfect way to know without checking which are maps. That's why the category is useful. Superm40108:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this disturbs anything. I use this category, as well as its subcats, to find SVG files on which to base derivative works. Otherwise, I'd have to start from scratch or go searching manually, which are both equally painful. Thadius85617:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched the world map category from a svg map of italy, and the category to reach world vector maps is the SVG maps hierarchy. --Dereckson08:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep until all of the png maps have been converted to svg. And even then, there would have to be a rule about no new png maps. Anyone who is concerned with the categorization of images should be familar with the differences between raster and vector images. -- carol07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, I'm trying to find categories of maps, I don't care the format, I need the category. If you have another compiled category, then fine, but it's good to have a choice all on one page.
Keep, the category provides an easy way to find SVG maps. There's a lot of reasons to keep it, as already noted. Additionally it's useful if I look for images or maps. I'd like to have every possible angle to find something relevant. A lot of media's categories are very poor, and unspecific categories like this one are often a last resort to find them. --Jo12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How this picture is coming into my user talk page, can you put the question to : F3rn4nd0 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)--GeorgHH 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC),
Fernando has now pointed to some (small-scale) reproduction of the image found at a colombian newspaper. That's a clear indication that it may be a news image. Some searching reveals this, where it is marked as a Reuters image. Also interesting is the first upload of that image, which shows white borders left and right. Delete as a likely copyvio. Lupo10:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the other upload, the fact that it appears elsewhere on the net would suggest that it's a press photo. And that this is a copyvio. Megapixie13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, so its a scan, why then the description of a camera in the extended details? maybe to conceal that it's a fake?--F3rn4nd003:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He took a photograph with a film camera. Got it printed. Then took a photograph of it with a digital camera ? Does that make any sense? The rest of his uploads look like copyvios as well. Megapixie13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image has no SVG version. More, the availability of a SVG version is not a valid reason to delete a media file. This request is a nonsense. --Juiced lemon00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image claims it is GNU, but no source is given, and I doubt that the image is a GNU-eligible picture. This is likely a copyrighted image that was uploaded under mistaken pretenses. It does not belong on the Commons if it is copyrighted. --WhisperToMe20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is of course entitled to challenge the copyright status of a Wikimedia Commons image. It is strange, however, that WhisperToMe tried surreptitiously to remove this image from the Pan Am Flight 103 article in the past few days. I am somewhat concerned about the editor's motives in regard to this image.Phase421:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I at first wanted to have both images (one for the infobox and one for the "investigators") - Notice how the same image was repeated twice, and I replaced one instance so that one image each has the spotlight ([119]). BUT upon finding no copyright status, I feel that there is no point in keeping this on the Commons. If the source is found, it may be reuploaded on EN. WhisperToMe22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was asked to comment here. It's correct that the image shouldn't be on the Commons unless it has been released, but it's also true that it can be used in the article on the bombing under a legitimate claim of fair use. It's an iconic image of a non-reproducible historical event, widely disseminated to the point where it's very unlikely to have commercial value, and our use of it anyway would not affect that. So the thing to do, Phase4, if you want to use it, is re-upload it to Wikipedia; use the {{Non-free historic image}} tag; and add a link saying where you found it (or another one if you can't find this precise one). I would also say that WhisperToMe is acting in good faith. There's just been a misunderstanding caused by the mistaken upload of the image to the Commons and the deletion of the local copy. It happens quite a lot. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
obsolet becaus of: Image:Architectureinhelsinki.jpg ..i checked the usage in worldwide wikis and changed it to the other file, hope i've done everything correctly hst00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Architectureinhelsinki.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I changed the tag from speedy deletion to a regular one. Is a redirect from a lemma to a category of the same name regarded to be inacceptable according to Commons policy. I found it sometimes to be quite handy --Gugganij07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short: uploader claims that he/she has a permission to publish the photo. This is not correct.
User Karlenius uploaded this photo on November 23, claiming that he/she had been given permission from Skellefteå AIK hockey club. Uploader claims that the club has given permission for anybody to use the photo for any purpose, including commercial use. I have sent an email to the hockey club asking them to confirm this. I received a reply from Anna Brännström at the club who claimed that they had only given permission to use the photo in a Wikipedia article, not a general permission. The club is opposed to the idea that anybody can use the photo for any purpose.
Email from Anna Brännström, November 27:
Jag har gett godkännande att i detta fall använda bilden. Men absolut
INTE att vem som helst kan använda spelarfotografiet till vad som helst
och i kommersiell användning.
Jag fick ett mail av en privatperson som frågade om han kunde använda
bilden till sin artikel han författat om Viklund och lägga upp den på
wikimedia, vilket jag godkände.
Men innebär det att bilden kan användas till vad som helst av vem som
helst så är det felaktigt och vi kallar tillbaka bilden.
Jag har erhållit en fullt korrekt licens till att använda bilden i artikeln om Tobias Viklund. Känn dig fri att hitta/komma med förslag på en bättre kategori än den jag valde, vilken innebär att det är fullt möjligt för alla att använda bilden. Valet av licenstyp föranleddes av otydlighet från Wikipedia kring vilka kategorier som egentligen passar. Frågan blir åter: vilken licenskategori ska man välja för bilden som, uppenbart, har erhållit ett fullt korrekt godkännande från ishockeyklubben Skellefteå AIK. Vidare finns det väl knappast skäl att föra diskussioner om detta på engelska, särskilt eftersom e-brevet från Skellefteå återges på svenska?! Jag är svensk, likaså "Thuresson" som riktar sig till mig.
Karlenius, 2 December 2007.
Radera, for at en skal anvende bildet på Wikipedia/Commons må en ha lov til å anvende det kommersielt og til hva som helst. --Kjetil r01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radera. När bilden ligger på commons kan den användas till ungefär vadsomhelst. Det finns (tyvärr, kan man tycka - men ur andra synvinklar är det icke-tyvärr) inget sätt att ange att den bara får användas i en viss artikel eller bara på Wikipedia, inga av de tillgängliga licenserna ger den möjligheten - även om de som äger bilden ger sin tillåtelse till just det. /NH07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radera Bilden verkar ju uppenbarligen inte vara fri att använda i enlighet med de regler som gäller på Commons. MiCkE16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vad är det som säger att e-postmeddelandet från Brännström, återgivet av "Thuresson" inte är förfalskat?—the preceding unsigned comment was added byKarlenius (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 December 2007
Anybody can send an email to info@skellefteaaik.se and you will recceive a prompt reply from ms. Brännström. You can also call her at +46 910-792002. Thuresson10:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Det gör det faktum att ingen har något intresse av att stoppa en bild som skulle kunna användas - tvärtom. Däremot ligger det i allas intresse att inte (ytterst) bryta mot upphovsrättslagen. /NH12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, we need to send an email to make a point to it... I understand that the fact it doesn't mention restrains over images doesn't mean they are free... So if someone could please write an email to the webmaster/responsible/etc., please do, since I can't speak Russian. Regards, Julian's Rock(reply)20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why there's always someone willing to delete images?
The image is of a relevant russian journalist, an asassinated person, with a clear Copyright tag attached. Why do you think there's need of a permission to use it in order to illustrate the article on this person?
Which "commercial using"? Wikipedia is, to date, a non-profit endeavor.
What is "der.works"? Can't this guy write in decent English?
It is irritatin that some people prefer to destroy information right away (such as images), instead of helping to resolve any copyright issues.
"Non-commercial-only" images are not allowed at the commons. We want to allow re-use by commercial downstream re-users of our contents. And "der.works" are derivative works. Besides, Alex is Russian, so don't complain about minor grammatical errors. That's just irritating. Lupo08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you examine on the source site the properties of the image (in Firefox, right click on the image and select "Properties"), you'll see that the alternate text for this image is "Анна Политковская. Фото Новой газеты", or in English: "Anna Politkovskaya. Photo: Novaya Gazeta". It's a press image. Unless we can find clear evidence that Novaya Gazeta is the owner of the copyright and has released the image under a free license, we cannot host this image. Lupo08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have given three reasons - highly low quality (resolution), personal image, and is outside of project scope. If you don't understand my reason, it's better to ask for clarification than to be a bit too bureaucratic and comment as a keep on a technicality. --Maxim(talk)22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not notable, and the only way it falls into the project scope if the person was somehow notable, and he isn't, a simple Google seach shows that. --Maxim(talk)20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person is notable. You don't give the criterion you used to state this person is not notable, therefore I assume you have not checked his notability. --Juiced lemon20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When someone does a Google search, he or she wishes to find websites about the person in question; the more relevant information, the better a case for its inclusion. I got nothing related to this person. And even if this Bill Gates, a 70 px by 70 px image would be completely unusable. Maxim(talk)21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Spam. Just look at Image:Jordi Ribas 2.jpg. It's the same image, the description is very different. Look at the other images of that uploader, Image:Hhh.PNG is low scale, too, and it has a nice advertising: "It is a business minor, but it produces some fantastic video, if they want to hire their email was ..." If User:Jordiribas is actually Jordi Ribas on these images, then Image:Jordi Ribas 3.jpg should be deleted too, because the author hasn't given the permission to release the image. --32X19:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginner on Inkscape and I made errors that's why, there are a lot of versions in the file history. I think that it's a pity that Commons gets heavy for nothing, it is possible to delete this page, I will upload a new version then. (I am the autor of this image)--Abalg08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the current version is the correct version, then just need to Delete the rest but Keep the current one. Otherwise, Delete all of them. --Moonian11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
other parties, one after the other, inherited the economical rights of the previous party. I believe that now the legitimate party should be the newborn Partito Democratico. It still could be a trademark. However it cannot be modified, so GFDL for sure cannot apply --g13:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as Copyright Violation (not under GFDL for sure and not under PD-Old - that's over 70 after the author's death while the PCI is born in 1943... - or other forms of public domain). --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!?15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All the files in this category need to be deleted. They have a license from Flickr, which is fine, but that only covers the photos and not the artworks they are derived from. The artworks are all modern and are all the main subject of the photos. There is no permission from the original artists. I don't know anything about Senegalese law, but it used to be part of France. --Simonxag 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC) --Simonxag02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, There are hundreds (thousands ?) of mural paintings everywhere in Dakar, especially on religious subjects (Ahmadou Bamba and so on), and most of them are anonymous. However some of the nicest were made by Papisto Boy (pseudo). I know nothing about present Senegalese law either, but we might try to get in touch with him, though I don't know how for the moment Ji-Elle05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contacting the artist for permission is a good idea, but if we can't get permission the pictures must go. And we don't know how to contact the artist. --Simonxag00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set Setal was a popular movement initiated in the 1990s by the municipality of Dakar in order to clean up the city and make it look better. Anyone could take part in it and there are hundreds of authors. I believe that copyrights do not make sense here. See quotation in English below :
« Set Setal is not so much an art movement as an urban phenomenon -- young self-taught painters reclaiming and beautifying their neighborhoods of Dakar. Their "canvases" are cement walls and pavements; their themes range from historic and religious figures, mythology, traditional life, and animals to politics, sports, and public health. In short, they are didactic, moralizing, celebratory or whimsical. Some of the more recent creations are three-dimensional -- obelisks and other small monuments -- assembled and painted as colorfully as the murals. Set Setal is not entirely an independent, spontaneous phenomenon, even though it has gained its own momentum. Initially, it was a means of mobilizing youth, of redirecting the energies of young urbanites into creative channels and instilling in them a pride of place ».
More details here [120] about Papisto Boy, the man who painted the huge mural on a factory in Dakar. The others are anonymous people anyway. Ji-Elle20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says these r Madan people. an image with a knife in front is not my idea of a biased image reflecting any people. the image is used to give a bad impression about Madan people in ar.wiki Tarawneh01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Image of militias group of Madan people in baghdad/sadr city. Shihab20
Delete Apparently from Al Jazeera's photographers. That said, I'd like to make it known that I really disagree with the nominator's rationale. Blast 06.12.07 1359 (UTC)
Who says these r Madan people. an image with a knife in front is not my idea of a biased image reflecting any people. the image is used to give a bad impression about Madan people in ar.wiki Tarawneh01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Image of militias group of Madan people in baghdad/sadr city
Delete Apparently from Al Jazeera's photographers. That said, I'd like to make it known that I really disagree with the nominator's rationale. Blast 06.12.07 1400 (UTC)
I am sorry, I should have written it in a better way. It is just that this up-loader is getting the images from websites in the Internet and posts them here as his own work 12. Most of his uploads seems to be a copy-past work. I gave him a warning to clear things out. --Tarawneh03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The supposedly deleted article has not been (at least not yet). If it is deleted as a hoax then the pictures may need to go. --Simonxag21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image also appears on IMDB for Al Burke; I have therefore added a npd notice to the image page and a request on the uploader's talk page. -- Infrogmation03:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lade es auf de hoch, da können wir´s nutzen. (For non German: He should upload this screen to his homewiki - de-WP. There we can use it without copyriht problems.) Chaddy12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, German law doesn´t now fair use. But we have the term "de:Schöpfungshöhe". Because of this, this screenshot is ineligible for copyright, and therefore we can use ist on de:WP. Chaddy15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. In addition, created 1911 not necessarily means "published before 1923", so even a {{PD-US}} assumption is unproven. Lupo14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
One of my early uploads, where I still missunderstood the copright concept of derivative works (photos) of 3D objects that entered into the PD. This photo was not taken by me, so it is a copyvio. ALE! ¿…?23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Orphan/unused/uncategorized no reason for deletion. Description is "Diyarbakır/ Çınar /Ballıbaba Köyü İçme ve Kullanma Göleti", and I don't see the problem with the copyright (is there a question about the license used?). However, this file was copied from tr: wiki, and it looks as though a smaller version (note the 430px) was uploaded. Is there any way to recover the larger file? Deadstar (msg) 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion request, It has the wrong tag most likely because it is copyrighted by the photographer, it doesn't fit the PD qualification of a dead photographer for more than 15 years or a pic that's older than 50 years --Kolrobie23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Romanian Encyclopedia from 1938, the laws from 1867 and 1872 concerning the symbols of Romania established that only the military flags should bear the entire coat of arms, while the civil ensign not (no CoA on them). This flag is a fake military one, as it bears only the middle CoA. As a military flag, it should have the big CoA with olive branches and king's monograms at corners (like this one). This flag must be replaced wit the simple one: Image:Flag of Romania.svg--Alex:D 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Alex:D14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source (in Romanian): Encyclopedia of Romania, Bucharest, 1938, I, p. 81 (PDF). The text says: ...The 1866 Constitution as well as the Law for establishing the coat of arms of Romania from 1867 (art. 6) and the Law for changing the country's coat of arms from 1872 (art. 6) stated the [vertical] arrangements of the [flag] colours... Same laws established that the army flag will bear in the middle the country's coat of arms and the civil flag will not bear any coat of arms. --Alex:D18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said before, according to the law, between 1867 and 1947 the Romanian civil flag never had the CoA on it. It was just as today: plain blue, yellow and red. Moreover, the flag depicted here never existed, it's a fake! (it bears only the middle coat of arms, used in certain others circumstances). The only Romanian flag with Coat of arms on it during this period was the military one. That is, full coat of arms, surrounded by olive branches and with king's monogram on corners. --Alex:D23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a serious reason, there are automatic tools for replacing this image with Image:Flag of Romania.svg everywhere. We are talking about a fake that must be deleted, and yes, I remember what Commons is. No original research allowed here. --Alex:D23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but in that boxes the flags are the country ones, not the army's. I will come with SVG flags for Romania's Army pretty soon. --Alex:D00:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fake flags are allowed here. We are free to interpret and modify anything here we like. We have tons of images that represent things that don't exist in real life. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean we shouldn't host it. Key word: "host". This isn't Wikipedia where we make editorial decisions like that. If it serves some sort of use to Wikimedia projects (a lot in this case) and is freely licensed then we should keep it according to COM:SCOPE. If you disagree with that, please start a discussion on it's talk page or the village pump. →Rocket°°°08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the main purpose is to use a correct flag in the articles, that is, to replace this one with Flag of Romania.svg. What do I have to do for that? I understand commons has bots for replacements... --Alex:D23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Oh dear, not another "this is a fake flag" vote. This issue has been covered at great length quite recently: see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg. As Rocket000 has pointed out, it is not the purpose of Commons to determine which version of a flag is 'correct', and thereby force other Wikis to use only that Common-approved 'correct' version. Whether this flag is 'correct', 'official' or whatever does not matter; all that matters is that it is heavily used, and therefore falls within our scope. Anyone who disagrees with usage being made elsewhere should take that up with users of the individual wikis. MichaelMaggs17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please check the year the work was published. Most of his works aren't copyrighted, since they were published before 1923. The author's date of death is irrelevant. It's not a factor unless the works were created after 1977 or were never published[123]. Yes, the tag's misleading. Rocket00006:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that this was published before 1923 when I uploaded (I believe that the date was posted on the placard next to the artwork), but I don't recall the actual publication date. Brighterorange16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beerbohm was a British artist. I presume his works were published first in the UK, and thus {{PD-US}} is not applicable. If you can indeed find evidence of publication pre-1923, upload locally at en-WP and tag as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Otherwise, just delete. Lupo14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that after 50 years of death of author, it becomes public in the US and Canada, but not in Europe. So it should not be deleted but have a proper tag.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. Commons request public domain for both US and the source country, which in this case is UK. Since there is no proove that it is PD in UK. If somebody wants to use it in a local Wikipedia where the rules are not of that kind, you can contact me and I will send it to that person so that (s)he can upload it there (e.g. en.WP). Cecil19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I cannot make out a convincing reason for the deletion request. Shizhao may have missed that a clear GFDL by the creator/owner of the photo in question is provided (see the entry in my user talk page) --Wikihawk09:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it also appears that the earlier, watermarked upload at Image:Vivian Hsu portrait.jpg was deleted as being a duplicate of this image (which it wasn't, as it was watermarked with "www.davidbarker.com"). That deleted image was smaller (only 220×220px), but mentioned an OTRS ticket... I presume this corresponds to the text on Wikihawk's talk page. Does this release also apply to the larger image Image:Vivian portrait.jpg? Where can one find vivian1comp.jpg, vivian2comp.jpg, and so on? Lupo09:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the text on the talkpage and the OTRS ticket but neither refers to this specific image, namely Image:Vivian portrait.jpg, so at the moment I see no alternative to deletion. I have asked Wikihawk to see if he can persuade the copyright owner to do a similar GFDL release to those mentioned on his talk page. In the meantime please hold this the deletion request open for another week. Unfortunately, Wikihawk is not very active, but I think we need to close as delete unless we get a clear GFDL release soon. --MichaelMaggs06:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikihawk has uploaded the seven photos which David Barker has released under the terms of GFDL: Image:Vivian1comp.jpg, Image:Vivian2comp.jpg, Image:Vivian3comp.jpg, Image:Vivian4comp.jpg, Image:Vivian5comp.jpg, Image:Vivian6comp.jpg, Image:April16vivian7comp.jpg and has confirmed that the image in question Image:Vivian portrait.jpg was created from the the first original in the list. I have fixed all the tags and think it's all OK now, based on the OTRS ticket. --MichaelMaggs18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This media file is missing essential source information. --Denniss
I thought that was quite clear. The image is from the Southwark library collection. The name of the photographer is not recorded and it's public domain due to the 1953 Enemy Property Act. // Liftarn
I am not a copyright expert, but in this case the name of the photographer was never published as it was a propaganda job during the war. And it also appears to be a composite of two photos. Anyway, I made ChrisO aware of it. // Liftarn
Liftarn's correct - the image is actually a montage of an aerial (reconnaissance?) photo of south-east London and a top view of a German bomber. I haven't been able to track down with certainly where it was first published, but I believe it comes from the pages of en:Signal (magazine). Under the terms of the UK's Enemy Property Act 1953 and similar legislation in the United States, the copyright on wartime publications of the Third Reich was voided; I quote: "The Enemy Property Act extinguished all German interests, both copyright and ownership, in all material belonging to former German enemies (whether individuals or businesses) which was brought into the UK between 3 September 1939 and 9 July 1951." [124] -- ChrisO08:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found two links[125][126] that seems to have the same or very simmilar (difference in cropping) image, but none of them have source info. I tried looking at the Southwark library website and found some images, but not this one. // Liftarn
This one looks as if it came from [127] which seems to have been cropped and gif->jpg from [128]. I think there used to be more information at the deleted en:Image talk:Surreydocks1941.jpg 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment The UK Enemy Property Act extinguished German copyrights only in the UK, and only on works brought into the UK between September 3, 1939 and July 9, 1951. It did not and does not affect the copyright status of the image anywhere else. If this is a German work, it would need to be in the public domain in Germany if it were to stay here. Lupo09:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in Signal it was probably brought into the UK between September 3, 1939 and July 9, 1951. // Liftarn
Official insignia are not PD under Danish / Farose laws but are subject to normal copyright laws besides the regulations for official symbols. For the Faroese law, see http://www.tinganes.fo/logir/2001.1003.htm (Danish). Insignia are not excluded under § 9 so § 63 applies (= 70 years pma). The corresponding Danish law uses the same phrasing. The fact that this image uses Faroese text rather than Danish places it no earlier than 1948 when Faroese home rule was established so the author cannot have been dead for the required 70 years. I've been unable to find the name of the heraldic artist on Tórshavn's official webpage but it is extremely likely that this person was one of three Danish heraldic artists that all died in the 1950s, in other words, either Poul Bredo Grandjean (1880-1957), Friedrich Britze (1870-1956) or possibly Poul Reitzel (1945-1958). A fourth option is Sven Tito Achen (1922 - 1986). Based on the style of drawing, my best guess would be that this particular drawing was made by either Friedrich Britze or Sven Tito Achen. --ValentinianT / C12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That multiple people have passed something around the internet has no effect on whether it was or wasn't released under a free licence by the originator/copyright holder. -- Infrogmation03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; upload has no information on original photographer/copyright holder; no reason to assume it has been released under a free licese. -- Infrogmation03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reason for deletion) --16 November 2007 User:Sarefo
Delete Deletion fix. Initial requester did not give reason. As I see it, the image is of poor quality, tries to depict a sign with some writing on it and I don't see how it can be used. Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 12:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, yes, what both of you did not seem to have noticed: Uploader has uploaded a new version over the top of the old one: "18:13 29 November 2007 user:Audriusa: The wrong photo has been uploaded by chance (table next spider instead of the spider). The correct picture is now uploaded. Think, no reason for deletion.". The new image is perfectly fine. Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Almost looks like a screenshot to me? User has been warned on nl: wiki for uploading the same photo numerous times, and for claiming "own work" where photos can be found elsewhere online. Deadstar (msg) 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this image from tr.wikipedia. The image is not used and the user who upload it has not been active for a year. But the image is about Andon. Maybe it will be able to be used. --Maderibeyza15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have potential use. LadyofHats, I appreciate knowing if an image is used or not without having to check and I think that info. should be included in your reasons for deletion, but you are aware this is not a valid reason for deletion itself, right? I'm just asking because I've noticed you've been nominating other images for the same reasons. Rocket00018:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having an alternative version available is not sufficient reason to delete. Leave it marked as superseded so people know there is an alternative, let them use the image suitable for their requirements. --Tony Wills08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission only for "non-commercial, scientific and/or educational purposes". Uploader agreed with deletion on the image description page. -- 91.65.124.3416:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template is not used anywhere. And the permission quoted on the template page seems to cover only use on Wikipedia and for educational purposes. --91.65.124.3414:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged" is not the same as CC-BY 2.5. Image may be in the public domain, but the source does not mention the author, country or publishing date. -- 91.65.124.3414:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Gaetano, the English Wikipedia does not own the copyrights on that image. What some uploader wrote on the image page at the English Wikipedia is utterly meaningless, unless it can be backed up by a statement from the original source (or by some more general rule that would make such an image copyright-free). Lupo14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the image with the license too. Why in english wiki the license is good and here not? Excuse for my terrible english--Gaetano5614:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image was originally uploaded to en.wp without a license, and it was subsequently tagged with Template:GFDL-presumed over there. That template, however, should not be used for images uploaded after 1 Jan 2006, so it was inappropriately used on this image. After that, it was uploaded onto fr.wp, and then to Commons, and now we have an inappropriate GFDL, without disclaimers. Thus, this image should be deleted, as we really don't know its licensing status. RG202:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info by the uploader: Maybe you are right. I applied this license because in my opinion this logo and even the figure on the right is not meeting the minimum threshold of originality. --norro22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tapand is an Afghan artist that is still alive despite the PD-old and PD-Art template on Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.jpg. I don't doubt that PRTkand and Executioner, the uploaders, took the photographs. But, since these images are faithful representations of Tapand paintings, Tapand owns a big part (if not all) of the copyright, and this makes these pictures unsuitable for Commons.
But, to make things more difficult, here is what Madmax32 said: "Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works so the works are not obliged to be protected by copyright". This seems to have triggered the keeping of Image:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg.
My opinion: even if Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention, which induces that we are not obliged to respect Afghan authors' copyrights, I believe this would be a bad idea to consider Afghan works as Public Domain or something similar. We should ensure that these paintings are protected according to local Afghan copyright laws (which remain to be determined). Therefore, I propose that these images be Deleted because they show the work of a living artist which, unless proved otherwise, is certainly copyrighted. — Xavier, 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I own these paintings, they are no where else to be found. Tapand is no longer the copyright holder because he sold them to me, which means he sold the copyright to me.--Executioner21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether that is how copyright works. I question your assertion that your ownership of the painting means you own the copyright on it, unless you explicitly negotiated for that with the original copyright holder. Artists sue the owners of their work when the owners want to modify them, or display them in a manner the artist considers inappropriate, or damaging to their reputation.
It is not that common for artists to sue owners. But if you look around you will find instances. Here in Toronto a big mall -- unusually large for the time was built, right downtown. It has celings about eight stories tall down its central hallway -- which is also quite wide. An artist was commissioned to create models of about 100 Canada Geese. They weren't duplicates. They were hung to look like a big V of Geese, from one end of the mall, to the other (The mall is about half a kilometer long.) The owner made a big deal about this artwork. It was expensive. But, about a decade later, when the thrill of ownership was over, whoever had the responsibility of decorating the mall for Christmas hung all kinds of Christmas decorations from the Geese.
The owners argued, as you seem to be arguing, that they owned the Geese, so they could do whatever they wanted with them. The court sided with the artist.
Then the owners decided that they would move all the Geese to one end of the mall, so they could hang those Christmas decorations. The artist sued again. The Geese have been moved, and are now hung as if the flock was taking off from a fountain at one end of the mall. I don't know if the artist lost, or if he reached a settlement with the owners.
Over on the wikipedia contributors are proscribed from uploading copyright material that hasn't been liscenced under a free liscence. And contributors are not supposed to get around the liscensing restrictions of copyright holders, by using links to unauthorized material as references -- when the copyright holder has the article on a member's only site. Using copyright material without authorization is violation of the law. Linking to copyright material elsewhere, that is being mirrored by someone else, in violation of the law, is not a violation of the law. But the wikipedia doesn't do this, because it looks bad.
Similarly, even if, for the sake of argument, under the copyright laws where our uploader lives, he or she does own the copyright for a work of art, just because they bought the physical object, I think we should be careful about uploading images of that work of art, because it gives the appearance of not respecting copyright -- just as linking to unliscenced mirrors does -- even though that too is legal. Geo Swan22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sale of paintings does not imply the sale of the copyright. An artist can sell the copyright to the buyer of an artwork, or to anyone else for that matter. It is very rare for an artist to also sell the copyright to the buyer of a painting, but quite common for people owning artworks to (mistakenly) think they have copyright over them. Is there any evidence of the transfer of the copyright? --Simonxag23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Xavier, Geo Swan, Simonxag, the best example for you to understand how copyright works, please see information about this image. Harrison Forman created the work but the copyright holder is the current owner, the American Geographical Society Library of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries or simply University of Wisconsin. Similarly, Tapand (an artist) created these works but the copyright holder is me because I claim to owning them now.--Executioner21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyright suppose to mean claim of ownership. I don't understand how this works. I thought that since I owned the paintings that I also owned the copyrights. In Asia for less than $100 you can get your own photo turned into a large sized painting... there are many shops who do this. I can give you telephone numbers of some shops and they can explain all this. Once you pay for the painting then it's all yours. These paintings are not that important for me to keep them here, I just thought that I could share them with people who may want to admire the work. Isn't this one (Image:Kamoli Khujandi.jpg) same as mines? And if so, then why is that not deleted? If you really must delete my paintings from here then I guess I will not make more arguments, I give up on this.--Executioner03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have to make a stand on whom the copyright belongs to. I will make my vote on the basis of the legal limbo the lack of Afghan ratification of Berne has created. My prime concern is the highest degree of availability. __meco17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Owning a painting is never ever the same as owning the copyright, however, this can be transfered also. And like it or not, there usually is no mention of the word "copyright" when the transfer takes place. That's how most of the world works. There's not always going to be formal statement to show the transfer of rights. So we can take it or leave it. Rocket00006:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the circumstances. In some cases owning a painting that was created by someone else is not the same as owning copyrights, but, in some cases it is. As I explained to Xavier, Geo Swan and Simonxag above that Harrison Forman created images in the 1960's and now the copyright holder is the University of Wisconsin because it has legal possesion of them. [130] Similarly, Tapand (an unknown artist) painted these but now I have legal possesion of them. I took the photographed images of the piantings and uploaded them here. Xavier, asked to Delete these images because they show the work of a living artist [131] and that is not a valid reason to delete images.
I will give an easy example (to everyone). Let's say you buy a Ford Mustang vehicle from a Ford auto dealership. You become instant owner of that car as soon as you buy it and pay for it. The Ford Motor Company does not own it anymore, it only owns copyrights to the name "FORD". If you take photo of your Mustang car and upload it to Commons there is no reason to delete the file. The people asking to delete my images here are basically arguing that Ford Motor Company is the copyright holder of your Ford Mustang because that company created it. That is not how it suppose to be. Cars and painitings are both called "things" so one cannot say they are not the same.--Executioner09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to understand the given information. If you read here, it says: Photographer = Forman, Harrison and Rights = The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. That means Harrison Forman visited Kabul in 1969 and took the photos but the copyright holder of these photos is the University of Wisconsin. At the very bottom of the photo it also indicates that the University of Wisconsin is the owner of the photos. The fair use license is irrelevant in this topic.--Executioner23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Library owned resources is governed by license agreements which restrict use to the UWM community and to individuals who use the UWM Libraries facilities. Anyone using the UWM Libraries facilities is welcome to use these resources on-site but off campus or remote use is restricted to UWM faculty, staff and students. Licensed electronic resources are owned by independent providers and are protected by copyright and other laws.
The low-resolution images available from the UWM Libraries Digital Collections website may be copied by individuals or libraries for personal use, research, teaching or any "fair use" as defined by copyright law. Low resolution images can be downloaded for no charge by “right-clicking” with your mouse on the full image and saving to your local computer.
Excuse me but I believe the conditions under which the University of Wisconsin released the low resolution versions of these images stops short of what you have asserted they have released. I would argue that it stops short of the requirements to be hosted on commons. The wikipedia proper, as opposed to the commons, does allow a limited amount of "fair use" images. Geo Swan03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was no explicit transfer of copyright, then the copyright remains with the artist. This is a cut-and-dry case. Selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. Mangostar15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mangostar is a very new user. He/she began just last month in March 2008. [132] His/her reason for deletion doesn't make any sense to me. The paintings were not and never copyrighted before they fell in my hands, so how can the copyright be transferred? Mongostar has admitted that selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. I own these never before-copyrighted drawings and so I should be allowed to upload images of my drawings.--Executioner07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is and isn't copyright varies by jurisdiction. But 163 countries have signed the Berne Convention.
Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force at creation, without being asserted or declared: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors were treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country that signed the Convention.
My understanding is that it is US law that is most important to the consideration of copyright on the wikipedia, because the servers are in the USA. Therefore Taipand has the same "moral right" to his work, when it is hosted on servers in the USA as if he had created it in the USA.
Do I know, for a certain fact, whether a photo of a painting violates the painter's rights?
I am not claiming to know what the copyright rules are in Afghanistan. List of parties to international copyright treaties says that Afghanistan is not a Berne signatory, but has observer status under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. I don't know what "observer status" means. But my reading of these articles is that if Afghanistan was a signatory to this agreement all of the intellectual property of your artist Taipand would be born copyright -- same as in the rest of the world.
Having said that, I have read many of your observations on copyright, and, no offense, I am concerned that you hold serious misconceptions on how copyright works in the USA. You might find it worthwhile to read w:Feist v. Rural. Geo Swan03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia and no USA's copyright law does not apply to Afghanistan. Afghanistan's copyright law would be similar as to other Middle Eastern or neighboring countries, if whenever it is introduced. If US law was the utlimate one than why are there different laws for each country? "Observer status" there means it is not a signatory, not part of the convention so you can't make anything out of it. I'm from USA and I know the law on copyrights, and since you're a Canadian, you probably don't know our law in USA.
I've read w:Feist v. Rural. It says: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)[1], commonly called just Feist v. Rural, was a United States Supreme Court case in which Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural had sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed. Similarly, the paintings by Tapand are not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement exists.--Executioner14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If it was sold in Afghanistan, that is publishing it. Country of first publication would be Afghanistan. Buying artwork does not transfer copyright; and if there was none to begin with it is certainly not created by purchasing works. Still Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Berne Convention, Article 3 says "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. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." I see no way to interpret that as saying that selling the original is publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Exhibiting a work is mentioned as not being published, but not selling it -- that would seem to count as published. And the sale was by consent, presumably. The author has received typical economic compensation... that is publishing it to me. Offering for sale is explicitly part of the U.S. definition, so it is most definitely considered as published in Afghanistan by U.S. copyright rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically mentions copies. Publication is something restricted to the artist; since I can legally sell the original, selling the original can't be publication. Unpublished manuscripts get sold all the time without jeopardizing the rights of the authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original is a "copy", by U.S. copyright law definitions. This paper goes into the topic in depth. Even by the definition as conjured by the courts before 1978, the original author selling the work to the public was considered publication (there is a Nimmer quote in that paper). The key is offering it to sale to the general public -- manuscripts are not directly offered for sale by the original author, usually. Sale normally doesn't jeopardize the rights, either. But an Afghan author would not expect to have any such rights for works sold in Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These images were captured in Afghanistan by someone I personally know, they are camera pictures of paintings that were made by a local Afghan artist (Tapand). The original paintings are found at the governor's palace in Kandahar [133], [134] (File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg), at the Presidential palace in Kabul, and at some other government locations inside Afghanistan. The current owner is Afghanistan's government and that nation has no copyright law. See {{PD-Afghanistan}}--Officer (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment: I have followed the links and see that Afghanistan now has a "Law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers". However, I have read the online translation, and the law appears to give rather limited protection. In particular, Article 10 reads "The Author shall enjoy the provision of this Law as long as his work has not been published, printed or broadcast before Afghanistan in any other country." As these works appear to have been first published at Commons, on servers held in the United States, the artist seems to me to be unable to claim a copyright in them. That being so, I am at a loss to see what prevents the owner of the paintings, Executioner, now called Officer, from claiming (and giving up) his own copyright in any photographs he takes of them. I am not convinced by case law from other countries, and the international conventions do not create supranational copyrights. As Officer has donated his images to Commons, is there really a problem? Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a work was first published in another country, then it would not qualify for PD-Afghanistan in the first place, and would be copyrighted under the terms of that other country (almost all of which are Berne Convention signatories). The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright -- the concepts are distinct, and can be transferred separately. Usually these days, laws are written so that the sale of an object does not imply the transfer of copyright. The Afghan law does not state that in so many words, but Article 12 seems to require that all transfers of copyright must be in writing with an explicit timeframe mentioned (and Article 36 seems to forbid a total transfer of rights for "future" works). As the owner of the object, User:Officer likely has a certain number of rights in many countries, but the unfettered use of the copyright is not one of them, at least inside Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This one (File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg) was painted on the outside wall of the Governor's Palace in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I snapped the photo of it. I'm not sure but I think the wall has since been painted over or something, you may be able to find a different version of this image in news reports or something being shown on the wall. I'm also not sure if there is any other fine version of this because at the time when I took the photo not many people used cameras in southern Afghanistan. The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [135], [136], [137]. I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. Isafmedia uploaded the same images to Flickr, which is not copyright violation, and so my uploads should also not be copyright violation.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those would not be a copyright violation outside Afghanistan, and even in Afghanistan there may be some equivalent of "fair use", but ... unless Tapand transferred his copyright to you (which as mentioned above seems to require a written notice), or Tapand agrees to license them himself, they would not be "free" in our definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the license suggests these files are copyrighted for life + 50 or publication + 50 (if author is not known) unless they can be tagged with some other license (such as through OTRS). PD-Afghanistan cannot be used here. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment One very murky aspect is if User:Officer bought some of these original works prior to the 2008 implementation date of their copyright law -- it's hard to say if that would have been considered to transfer the copyright as well, as that right would not have existed at all at the time, and would not have been a consideration. Any law requiring a written transfer would not be applicable to pre-2008 acts though. It's hard to say if the law simply granted the author a new right regardless of having previously sold the work, or if that would be deemed to have been transferred as well. The law doesn't have much in the way of transitional clauses dealing with situations like that. But, it sounds like most of these are photos of paintings which are owned by the government, so I'm not sure if that ambiguity applies here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a very logical answer to the problem you raise: if there was no copyright, and transfer of copyright wasn't a consideration as you rightly say, then of course it didn't get transferred. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist. And the new law obviously speaks of authors, not of owners, so the author and not the owner is the person to whom the retroactive restitution of copyright applies. Fut.Perf.☼06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright existed, they were protected under US copyright law before 2008 because I was the first person to publish them in the US. Author and owner should be the same when it involves purchasing paintings from the painter. Attribution goes to the person who paints a painting and permission is required from whoever owns them.--Officer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general meaning of publication is when the work is published in the media. If one wants to add exhibiting as publication then one would need to show some kind of proof that it was published inside Afghanistan. I wonder what's so important that people find about these silly paintings, they are nothing special. You can walk into any art store and find things like this for as low as $5.--Officer (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buying a painting doesn't mean you own the copyright. Artists can make multiple identical paintings. We would need proof of rights transfer perhaps. Just because it is sold cheap doesn't mean it is freely licensed. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 05:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Exhibiting a painting is not necessarily publication. *Selling* a painting is something else altogether. Publishing via the media is not a requirement at all. For the Berne Convention, publication is making the work available to the public in a manner sufficient to “satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” Offering it for sale, for something like a painting (different nature than a book), would probably qualify -- anyone is able to buy it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg is an actual photograph off that wall? It certainly doesn't look like a photograph of a wall painting; it looks like a watercolor or something. Or do you mean the wall painting and this painting are just versions of the same popular motive? Back when you were User:PRTKand, you once claimed that this painting was "displayed for the public at Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan" ([138]) and then again that you "own" the painting [139]. So, which is it?
No. It is anonymous "artwork" on a wall, someone used Photoshop to edit it. Whatever it looks to you is not important, and I suggest you stop worrying about what my motive is. I have over 1,300 legitimate uploads here. PRTkand is my brother and I made that clear a long time ago to another disruptive user.[140]
Being displayed inside Kandahar Governor's Palace or inside Kandahar Museum is the same shit, because in his opinion Kandahar Governor's Palace "is museum" since all the artworks are housed there. [141][142], [143] In the eyes of a Westerner that place appears like a museum in Kandahar so it is safe to call it Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan. What's the difference and why is this a big deal that you had to bring up?
When someone says he or she owns the painting it means he or she owns the painting, not the copyright. Do you have evidence that someone else owns it?
No body claimed that these are original and only a fool would think that this Afghan painter went back in time to paint these people, then come back and paint current Afghan President. Of course the painter looked at various of other works and using his own hands created these works. He is the author of these works and something like that shouldn't be treated as derivative work.--Officer (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "brother" (i.e. you) claimed that he owned not just the others, but also the one you now claim was an anonymous wall painting [144]. Did he physically own that building? Was that wall painting on the Governor's Palace/Museum/whatever? What about the other ones that are in that building: he also claimed he owned those. Does he own the Governor's Palace and the artworks inside it? Also, earlier on this page you clearly said you took that photo off the wall [145]. So why did your brother claim it was his? Or are your brother and you the same person after all? Moreover, in the first deletion request (collapsed at the top of this page) you said the other images were paintings that you physically bought from the artist, Tapand. In this discussion, you have claimed that the paintings are in the Palace/Museum/whatever, and you merely took photographs of them. So, which is it? You are just stumbling from one lie into the other, and you are mixing them up now. Fut.Perf.☼07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to accuse me of being a liar or a fraud, I could have easily cut out the painter's name and claimed that I made these, there is no way of verifying that. But from being too honest I told everything in details and that proves that I'm not a fraud. You need to understand that sometimes the truth seems like a lie due to certain circumstances. Whether PRTkand is me or not is irrelevant and I don't need to convince you on that. If I say that is not me then it is not me. Looking at my first comment above, I've stated that "I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. You have no idea which is original or which is a copy. You're just taking wild guesses. Is it possible that in these days somebody can take my file and enlarge it and then hang it inside their house? If another person said or says he owns them he may be telling the truth and I don't care because whoever I gave these files to are the owners as I gave them permission to do what they want with them. In fact, I have dozens of others by the same painter which are not found anywhere else.--Officer (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is the original and which is the copy? Won't you tell us? You very clearly said earlier the paintings in the palace where the originals and you took photographs from them. Now you say you own the orginals and the paintings in the palace may be copies from your photographs? Were you lying then or are you lying now? Fut.Perf.☼08:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding out which one is original is again irrelevant and cannot be determined by us because I don't know myself who made those in the Palace. There may be copies everywhere now. I have to be there and closely inspect it to make sure. You are arguing but not paying attention to the point. The Palace only has a few but I have dozens.--Officer (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to muddy the waters further. Who do you think you're kidding? You made that claim also about the others, further up this page. Quote: "The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [...] I took these with my camera." Fut.Perf.☼09:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace" was simply meant to say that they are publicized (published) inside Afghanistan. If you have a case prove it otherwise go do something else because with me you won't get anywhere.--Officer (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt's life+50. All the rest of this discussion seems irrelevant. Certainly Berne is; it's Commons policy, not US copyright law that we're worried about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is more than one original work of art, however similar it may be to others, it can be considered in its own right. Copied from an indented reply I have just left above: "This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it. Um... yes they are; that is a misreading. The owner of the physical object has no claim on the copyright whatsoever, unless the copyright was also transferred separately (which usually needs to be explicit). If someone just took photographs of works which existed in Afghanistan, then there is no physical ownership even. (If these works have since been destroyed, yes, this is a shame -- but the law, in Afghanistan, is now giving the reproduction rights to the original artist.)Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original works may be PD, but Tapand's versions would be derivative works which have their own copyright. (If the originals were not PD, then distribution is subject to the permission of the author of the original as well.) They really need to be exact copies, such that there is no extra original expression in the new version. Straight-on photographs of a painting have been ruled to be such a case in the U.S. (no new expression) but something as simple as a mezzotint of a painting has been ruled to have its own creativity; see here. While I'm sure there are little or no cases in Afghan law yet, something like the above is usual under the Berne Convention, which it seems that Afghanistan is targeting, and the Afghan law does say that derivative works are copyrighted so far as the expression in the new version which is "differentiated" from the original. File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg looks very close I have to admit, but as the other example you found is very small it's hard to tell. If it's a re-drawn version, it's probably copyrighted, if it was basically a photocopy of the original with his signature added, maybe not. You almost suspect that there is an original photograph which both are based on (drawings based on photos like that are still derivative works though). If the original works are PD, then those can be uploaded, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Afghan law, but under US law, generally reproductions of public domain items are not copyrighted, per L Batlin and Sons v Snyder and Bridgeman v Corel, however there is a case[149] involving transferring a work from one medium to another (in this case a canvas painting to Mezzotint) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted There are two possibilities:
If the publication on Commons of these images predates any Afghan copyright, then the publication of these images created a USA copyright in each of the paintings. Those copyrights are owned by the artist. This happened because publication of a copy or replica will constitute publication of the original if it has not previously been published. It is well known that under Bridgeman vs Corel the mere copying of a painting does not give rise to a copyright for the photograph, so the photographer has no rights.
On the other hand, it is possible that the works were first published in Afghanistan and are copyrighted under Afghan law.
Delete Oh my, either the nomination reason or the horrible quality of the photo would be enough for deletion; add those two together plus out of scope and uploader request... Can I get a second for suggesting speedy deletion? -- Infrogmation03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrights of this symbol are violated. This symbol is owned by a jeweler: E.M. van der Steen in the Netherlands. See for information www.naturistensymbool.nl --194.123.196.181 30 November 2007
This image is a clear violation of the copyright in the images shown on the hoardings. The photo was taken in the US, which has no Freedom of panorama exception that would allow this image to remain here. As the FOP page says, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." Although this is speedily deletable as an obvious copyvio, I am posting here to give some advance warning of deletion. MichaelMaggs20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image would likely not have been taken if it were not for the presence of the poster, it's a clear case of deliberate inclusion which would make the image a derivative work of the original poster. Deletion is the only option I'm afraid. Nick03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe depicted subject is no artwork. It is a promotional piece intended for great publicity posted at a place that is famous for the high concentration of this kind of publicity. But go ahead: Delete all pictures of Times Square; New York City. --Wuselig09:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional images retain copyright, I'm afraid, even when they're 40ft high and displayed prominently in Times Square. When an image would be substantially different without the image, or when the subject of that image is the promotional imagery, then it becomes a derivative work. Images that would be substantially similar with or without promotional artwork could be used however, and I'm sure it's not too difficult to capture images of Times Square which don't focus on the promotional artwork. Nick12:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a clear violation of the copyright in the image shown on the hoardings. The photo was taken in the US, which has no Freedom of panorama exception that would allow this image to remain here. As the FOP page says, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork". Although this is speedily deletable as an obvious copyvio, I am posting here to give some advance warning of deletion. MichaelMaggs20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think even in the US an artwork can be photographed if its presence is only incidental. This is just a derivative work. --Simonxag23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image would likely not have been taken if it were not for the presence of the poster, it's a clear case of deliberate inclusion which would make the image a derivative work of the original poster. Deletion is the only option I'm afraid. Nick03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe depicted subject is no artwork, even though it may be of high artistic quality. It is a promotional piece intended for great publicity posted at a place that is famous for the high concentration of this kind of publicity. But go ahead: Delete all pictures of Times Square; New York City. --Wuselig09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The depicted subject is an artwork and we must respect the Freedom of Panorama law. Whether or not the artwork is a promotional piece intended for publicity, we don't permit posters and other promotional artwork here, and this image is no different thanks to US copyright law (as absurd as it is). Nick14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the following:
A “work of visual art” is —
(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
And especially this:
A work of visual art does not include —
(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;
(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
(B) any work made for hire; or
(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.25
Comment No I can't explain that, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even know where that text comes from. Maybe "work of art" is not the right term. But take a look at the list of things your definition excludes. Do you really think copyright does not cover a "motion picture or other audiovisual work"? Posters, statues, even action toys are copyrighted and people who try to make artworks derived from them without permission do lose big bucks in US courts. --Simonxag22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not a lawyer. But I sometimes have the feeling discussions here are somewhat of "The blind leading the dumb", or vice versa, so nobody can take offence.
If "work of art" is not the right term, would you, or the initiator of this discussion, restart it with the right arguments. What you or I think is not relevant in any way. Perhaps somebody should come into this discussion who knows.--Wuselig00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--Under "(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title" if we refer to what is covered under copyright protection in the following section"
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general28
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
That would therefore include the poster under section 5. I'd prefer clarification, because if I and others are being too strict in our interpretation, we would lose some good images, so it's worthwhile consulting with Mike Godwin, I think. Nick01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allegory of discussions about legal matters by Wikipedia usersWhat about § 107 fair use and § 108 library and archives. What we do here is non comercial. The only thing we would have to do, is add a warning that commercial use may violate other rights. But that is a fact with many other images here on Commons, for example pictures of celebrities. I can publish a picture of Paris Hilton taken by myself in a public surounding, but I cannot use it in an advertising flyer.--Wuselig08:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What we do here is very commercial, we provide images for all of our sister Wikimedia Projects, so by providing them with Non Commercial / No Derivative artwork, they present legal difficulties down stream for our content re-users. It's for this reason CC-BY-NC-ND are related licenses aren't permitted. The reason you can't use Paris Hilton on a advertising flyer is she'll most likely sue you for using her image to promote your product. There's no true copyright reason that prevents you using her image, but there's Personality Rights issues. They exist to prevent people from going around using photos of celebrities for dubious money making schemes and any other uses which would harm the reputation of the person involved. Nick12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Fair use" is not allowed on commons, and the 17 USC 108(h) exceptions do not apply to us. Do not muddy the waters unnecessarily. Personality rights are a different beast, and Paris Hilton is not a copyrighted work. Advertisement posters are, though. And an advertisement poster showing P.H. would be, too. Lupo11:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh dear. This discussion has gone off on a number of irrelevant tangents, but the legal situation is actually quite clear.
Does Freedom of Panorama apply? No. The US has no freedom of parorama for posters or any similar 2D works.
Could it be Fair use? No. Fair Use claims are not allowed here, as Lupo has pointed out.
Is it a "Work of visual art"? No. That is a special type of work recognised under US law for single copies or limited editions of less than 200, providing additional protection for the author - rights of attribution etc. Not relevant here, as posters can never be a work of this type (US code § 101).
What we have here is a poster, which is a work protected under US law in the category "“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work”. § 101 states that “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans...", which certainly covers posters.
The act of infringement arises because under §106(2) the copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. This photograph is a derivative work based on the original image in the poster, the poster being an important part of this photograph. --MichaelMaggs17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea, if the artist is still alive? After all the picture was taken over 28 years ago and the rights according to 106 (A)(d) "shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author" only.--Wuselig02:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. The section you mention has nothing to do with the the copyright term; it simply governs the right of attribution to works that qualify as "works of visual art", which this does not (see above). --MichaelMaggs09:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just delete the picture if that is your general policy. US-law, by adding a definition of each word after every paragraph, and than defining each new word in these added paragraphs is just a job-creation project for lawyers. Common Sense would have said, the intention of putting up such a poster at Times Square was to make it visible to a lot of people. The presentation of the unaltered image in Commons makes it visible to a lot more people, so thank you very much for spreading the message. Now if somebody should get the idea of altering this picture in a way that is opposed to the original message than that is a matter that needs to be prosecuted, but that shouldn't be our business at Commons. --Wuselig13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we do have to respect copyright. It's worth remembering that all images on Commons have to be released under a licence that allows commercial re-use. What do you think would be the stance of the copyright owner if we purport to release the image for commercial re-use to all and sundry, as we have to, including the copyright owner's competitors? The copyright owner could sue the competitor for the re-use, of course, but could also in principle have a cause of action against the Wikimedia Foundation. It doesn't serve our purpose best if we ignore copyright and hope the Foundation never gets sued. --MichaelMaggs21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Majorly: bad name, has been reuploadedj
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is a clear violation of the copyright in both the wording and the images shown on the hoardings. The photo was taken in the US, which has no Freedom of panorama exception that would allow this image to remain here. As the FOP page says, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." Although this is speedily deletable as an obvious copyvio, I am posting here to give some advance warning of deletion.MichaelMaggs20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally, the deletion nomination would be perfectly valid, but the United States Postal Service is a federal agency of the United States Government and as such, the artwork, which should belong to the USPS will be in the public domain, in light of that, the image is freely licensable but should recognise the public domain component that appears in the image. The Dow Jones logo and the remainder of the image is, in my view, incidental inclusion, the image would look essentially quite similar if they were removed and there's nothing else that I can see that's deliberate inclusion and would make the image a derivative work, unless the top portion of the advert isn't part of the USPS advert. There's always the possibility that the advert copyright in the picture doesn't actually belong to the USPS, if the advert wasn't created by the USPS but an outside agency, which would then make the image a derivative work. Quite a lot of ifs and buts which make me wonder if being cautious and deleting the image wouldn't be a sensible course of action at this time, but given it's most likely the artwork that forms the bulk of the image is in the public domain, I can't entirely recommend deletion. I'd normally suggest contacting the copyright holder and asking, but I doubt if it's worth it on this occassion. Nick03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "federal agency" point is an interesting one that I hadn't considered. I agree that without the USPS-related image this photo would otherwise be ok. --MichaelMaggs07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The modern USPS is a strange quasi-independent entity, to which PD-USGov doesn't apply [154]. This is well-known in the case of stamps, but appears to be true for all USPS work in general, according to the notes on Title 17. --dave pape20:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was led to believe it was just stamps and I've never noticed the section of USC Title 17 which states any work of the USPS is protected under copyright just as if they were a normal entity rather than a part of the Federal Government. Ah well, that's going to rule out the use of this image and require its deletion. Nick21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a picture of the building -- not of the advertisments. The building is a historical landmark and should be preserved. I think this falls under copyright paranoia -- as it would be impossible to have any pictures of new york city that didn't include an ad. -Quasipalm23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the entire building isn't shown, and what we see in the image is primarily an advertisement which, under US Copyright Law, makes this image a derivative artwork. If the entire building was shown and the advertisement was less prominent, there would be a very strong case for keeping such an image as there would only be incidental inclusion, but with this, it's much too prominent to be classed as incidental inclusion, even if that was the intention of the photographer, unfortunately. Nick14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're overestimating the size of the building. Roughly 90% of it is shown in the picture. It's a sliver of a building by modern standards, which in my view clearly makes this a picture of the building, not the ad. -Quasipalm21:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm being overly strict in interpreting the law here, I doubt that the USPS would even consider claiming this image to be a derivative work of their advertisement, but without knowing for certain that they wouldn't contend the photograph is a derivative work, it's impossible to be absolutely certain, and a cautious approach should be taken. The fact you've got the whole of the building in the photograph, I believe, and that the image couldn't be used to reproduce the artwork, perhaps a court might well rule the image is acceptable and the adverts are incidental in their inclusion. Nick22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the original deletion notice didn't talk of the copyrighted title sequence, but of the copyrighted title. That is why I undeleted it, as the title itself, I believe, is ineligible for copyright. If the logo itself (the title text and the lines above and below) were cropped out, wouldn't that make this an image of a trademarked logo, and nothing more? As is, being a television screenshot, I agree with the deletion (even if not with the speedy deletion). --rimshottalk17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct to say that the title itself -- "Grey's Anatomy" -- is not copyrighted. This image of the title, however, is both copyrightable and very likely registered as a trademark as well. (Hollywood is obsessive about such things.) I'd remove it. MikeGodwin18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The logo is just a pair of lines and some standard printing, so ineligible but the image is derived from a screenshot so a copyvio. --Simonxag23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is ineligible for copyright, it should not matter if it's a screenshot or drawn by a user, the content remains the same. --91.65.124.3411:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is of a 3D artwork, which would make this image a derivative work. I'd recommend deletion but wouldn't mind a second opinion given that the image may have been taken and uploaded outwith the USA, which might affect it's status. Nick15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be considered too plain to be considered a copyrightable 3D artwork, but it's a unique, if somewhat unknown trophy. We've had similar problems with other trophies such as the Stanley Cup in the past, which is why I'm looking for others opinions. The Stanley Cup does have considerably greater creative input, but the question on where we the law draws the line would remain. Nick22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the Stanley Cup was kept Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stanley cup closeup.jpg. The discussion was based on the cup being on Canadian FOP. This cup is German, but where it was when photographed is another matter. Have there been any successful copyright claims over images of such items? There are interpretations of copyright law that might prohibit all sorts of things, but they'd be bad for powerful vested interests (TV & press) and courts just don't seem to make them. --Simonxag01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I know some of our Stanley Cup images have been deleted in the past, perhaps incorrectly if they were taken outwith the USA. If the photograph was taken in Germany, which I believe doesn't have FOP, then it would possibly present a problem. I think the only countries in Europe which would permit FOP is Britain and Ireland (which is why Canada has FOP too, being an old outpost of the empire and inheriting our statute books). Looking at the usage of the image, it's only used on Commons, so taking a cautious approach and deleting doesn't look as if it's going to cause a great loss, though this is one of those curious issues that could do with being resolved properly once and for all. Nick01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept License is valid, quality is not so bad. About question of 3D artwork of cup images please open a new request if you want. --GeorgHH • talk21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reasons for deletion request: I have no reason but User:Lupo is of the opinion that it is a derivative work... In my opinion it is not: it was taken in the public place (Disneyland) and ilustrate the show given for public and the public can take part of it... Elektron07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. The show organizers (Disney) certainly have a license from Lucas Film. Being Disney, they also may use the Mickey Mouse character. This is a clear derivative work of the Darth Vader costume, of the star trooper (or whatever they're called) costume, and of Mickey mouse. Lupo07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Micky Mouse isn't a subject of the photo because is in the backgrond. It isn't the main theme of it and was taken "by occasion" so we woudn't disscussed the Mouse. There is a law about a free panorama, either... Elektron08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If it is a private property of Disney Company it means that Disney has a rigth to forbid to take a photo on it's land. But I havent't heard that it done it. I suppose it isn't banned but on contrary everybody can do this and Disney is happy that people do this on his property. So why do you suppose here is an objection from Disney? Don't you exaggerate in some way? Maybe you fight for Disney goods against Disney will? It is not the figth only for a figth? Elektron10:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, and please don't start with personal arguments. The point is that it is a derivative work. You can't publish it without the copyright holders' (Lucas Film & Disney) consent, except as allowed by "fair use" or "freedom of panorama". But we don't allow "fair use" at the commons, and "freedom of panorama" doesn't apply here. Lupo10:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Commons:Freedom of panorama and USA and Poland (where I live) are on that list. Thera are some restriction of course but in general you can do the photo of panorama... It is sad to say that France is really not a free country, either. Regards :)Elektron10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Main subject of picture is Vader, so character copyright is infringed and FOP is no defense. Yes, copyright has grown into a monster way beyond what was originally intended. But we still have to obey it. --Simonxag23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Suppose that it is a derivated work as you said. I don't think it is but suppose that it is... But this picture was published under a free licence by "Official Star Wars Blog". Pay attencion to the word "OFFICIAL", please. If it is an OFFICIAL site it means that Lukas Film know about it and accepted what they do. Follow this: if there is no objection of Lukas Film and they published that photo under a free licence it means that have rigts to do this and Lucas Film acceped this licence indirectly. For example a one of parts of this blog is "The 501st Legion" They have such statement:
So if they published some photos under CC licence and it is "Used under authorization" it means that Lucas Films know about it, it has no objection and they have rights to do this. Regards :) Elektron22:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Obvious derivative work, and the fact that all this was on display at Disneyland does not change the copyright position. MichaelMaggs17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm unable to get the website to load, so haven't been able to examine any copyright statement, but I know Agencia Brazilia release work under a free Creative Commons licence, do you know if this is the case with the Transport Department ? Nick15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In http://www.transportes.gov.br/ascom/transporteAgora/default.asp there is some information about the pictures taken from the news articles given on the Web site: Matérias, fotos e arquivos de áudio veiculados na Transportes Agora podem ser reproduzidos desde que citados os créditos da Agência. This is not equivalent to GFDL where you can modify the original pictures. But I could not find the license for the pictures which are not part of the news like the one in the title of this section. --Alpertron17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is a copyrighted emblem. only certain categories of works are released as PD by the Thai govt (see {{PD-ThaiGov}}) and this isn't in any of them. We've gone through this at wikipedia before. If someone can prove it's been in use long enough to qualify for {{PD-Thailand}}, have at it. Calliopejen10:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This emblem is a tracing from the front page of Thai Government Gazette and depicts the national emblem of Thailand. The Thai Government Gazette is, as far as I understand, a publication similar to Federal Register which publishes different acts, decrees and ordinancies of official bodies. The publication as whole falls under point three of the Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act, 1994. In addition, this emblem seems to be depicted on numerous Thai government documents that also fall under the same point. E.g this translation makes it clear that the Thai original included the Garuda emblem. The same applies to many other documents on the net. A Thai speaker could probably find such original document rather easily, but I can't. I think it utterly improbable that the Thai Royal Emblem would never be used on official communications covered by {{PD-ThaiGov}}. If it has ever been used, even once, the emblem is in PD by virtue of Thai copyright law. --MPorciusCato11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This emblem is only a tracing from the front cover of Thai Government Gazette, which is a collection of constitutions, laws, by-laws and so on. That document as whole is not elligible for copyright according to Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 7 of Thai Copyright Act of 1994 (see translation). Note that this emblem is not used as royal emblem, since royal emblem design is very different from this image. --Tangmo16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The PNG version was originally uploaded to Wikipedia, where it was deleted for failing to prove its public domain status. It was only later reuploaded here. Both this image and the PNG version's acceptability on the Commons depends on the png version's copyright status, which has yet to be definitely determined. - Paul_012(talk)17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute this. Such pictures are not creations who couls have a "copyright". There's no kind of a personal creation. It's like a geometric picture. Marcus Cyron17:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remover — you can just use {{speedydelete}}. --Boricuæddie 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This image is used in four wikimedia projects. --GeorgHH 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Uploaded to Commons under a free licence. I saw it on 5 different Wikimedia projects, so clearly it has been found useful. -- Infrogmation 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'd like more source information to put the picture in context, but I don't think this looks like a copyright violation. As for genuineness, the Ancient Egyptian religion was very sex-positive, so it could well be for real. What became of the original image? I can't find it's deletion. Was it deleted as a fake, because it was of poor quality or because it was "pornographic"? --Simonxag 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I guess you're referring to the images and not the category itself, though this would be rendered useless after image deletion. I'm inclined to delete, since the main focus of the images is architectural aspects, and indeed there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Patrícia msg 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comentario — just use {{badname}}; it's faster :-) --Boricuæddie 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Doesn't it also include photographs that are NOT on Commons ? (like the blue-clothed lady, who I think is Adriana Lima) In that case, 
Neutral This is no reason for deletion. --ALE! ¿…? 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - However, the license tag {{PD}} is a problem. --ALE! ¿…? 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
--ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: This photo seems copyrighted "© 1927 Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress". Doesn't this mean that the LOC owns the copyright ? Yet, I don't know what to deduce about PD status. — Xavier, 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Info copyvio via http://www.flickr.com/photos/southamerica/558141885/ (06.2007, by "johnlynskey"), uploaded on wikitravel in 2008 by "Vico ricab". Note that wikitravel-user "Vico ricab" = User:Vico ricab = User:Skykid 123ve. Gunnex (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Info: @ Admins: This picture is used very often so be careful if you delete it.
This is not about the name. - Rocket000 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what you need! Than question the photographer of this picture. All others is discriminating!
Question OK to use on wikipedia? If so can they be urgently transferred there given this (and perhaps others) are extensively used? --Tony Wills 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Seems I made a mistake above. I think I only read as far as "The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions: " and then the three criterias which were all OK for Commons. / Fred J 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Kjetil r 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
hi 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Done unuseful troll category. VIGNERON * discut. 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. If the series is incomplete, it serves no purpose. Superm401 - Talk 05:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
