Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
copyrighted picture from getty AFP [1] [2] VartanM (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio from http://www.daylife.com/photo/0fvW7Uu5Nf68S/Baku_military_parade (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44777000/jpg/_44777482_-14.jpg)
May also should get deleted:
- Some more files by Robert of Ramsor (contrib.; file log)
While the licence is CC-BY-3.0 the permission says "Non-commercial with attribution." which isn't allowed on Commons
D-Kuru (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep License has been corrected. Plrk (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Request
[edit]Where does it say that "Non-commercial with attribution." is not allowed?
If this is a valid reason, I would be grateful for the following.
- A. A reminder or pointing out as to the explicit point in Wiki Commons guidelines which says that this form of permission is not allowed.
- B. Someone getting in touch and leaving a message suggesting that a Deletion Request is being considered on grounds of XYZ, and suggesting I change the files before a Deletion Request is posted.
I discovered this because in the 12 - 24 hours since I was last logged in to Commons, the Wiki system headlined an advice that I had a message. The system sorks to make sure I am aware of messages. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Licensing te learn about Non-commercial. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please hold action on this Deletion Request to give me time to change the choice of License and wording of Permission.
Administrator Joku Janne has contacted me, and I have replied to him and also asked for advice. (Asking for suggestions as to best wording for Permission and most suitable choice for License with Attribution, including derivatives.) I will work through all my uploads regarding this. But won't be able to start immediately, so request delay until at least midnight Tuesday 20 January -21 January for this item now tagged, and a week to work through all my uploads. (I will probably do it faster, but I have quite a few to look at.) Thanks.
I have no problem with commercial use in general, just don't want to find any of us being exploited. It would be upsetting to find my work printed worldwide and no share of the profits. Probability is low - there are a lot of better pictures than mine.
- Does Wikimedia have any standard wording to cover this?
-- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you could write "See below" (referring to the CC license below) Plrk (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept Licence got changed to a free licence --D-Kuru (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Padalecki & Ackles
[edit]- File:Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles 2.jpg
- File:Jensen Ackles2.jpg
- File:Jensen Ackles.jpg
- File:Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles.jpg
Flickr user says in all cases "not taken by me". These are professional photos from the 2005 WB Network's All-Star Celebration (July 22, 2005); the first one is from the 2006 WB Network's All-Star Party (January 16, 2006). 
Delete Lupo 15:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Add to these:
- Same thing. Lupo 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Copyright violation on the Flickr users part Plrk (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete my (the uploader's) fault, I only regarded the indicated license, not that it had already been a copyright violation on Flickr. By the way, should this somehow be notified to flickr or do they not regard copyright violations by users? --Bjs (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Flickr is probably required by law to act upon copyright complaints, but we have no responsibility to notify them. If you want to do so anyways, you can do it here: http://help.yahoo.com/l/uk/yahoo/copyright/general.html Plrk (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Added the Flickr user to the list at Commons:Questionable Flickr images and also at User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. Lupo 23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Psychologists still use this test. Its value requires that test takers respond spontaneously to novel stimuli. If they have already encountered it in the public domain, discussed it with friends, etc., an instrument with over 80 years of research behind it is lost. 75.46.34.23 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- But this is in the public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
However, having a 'right to do it' doesn't mean that it is right to do it. Posting them for public inspection is likely to make the task of little use for prospective clients, who are thus deprived of the opportunity to learn more about themselves (rather than about the people they discussed it with). It's similar to 'cheating' on tests, which tells something about your morals, but not about how well you know the subject matter.
- Commons is not censored. We have a lot of stuff on here that some people would not like to see here. Thus, I think we should keep this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's about morality or the "right" to know. It's about not making it useless for people who could benefit from its results.
- As I said before, it's about not being censored and not about not telling people stuff someone else does not want them to know. Wikimedia projects are only bound by law. As long as it is not illegal to show these images, we don't want them to be shown is not a valid reason for deletion. w:Wikipedia:Spoiler is a similar case and is pretty much identical with our policy here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not again... Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Inkblot.svg, Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rorschach1.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rorschach_inkblot_test.gif. Strong 
Keep. Samulili (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a sensitive and frequently used psychological measure that relies on the novelty of the inkblots on the part of the viewer in order to be effective. Most people who post these images online in the public domain are either unaware of this, or are intending to provide the information so that others may "beat the test." It is an unfortunate fact that the copyright has run out and cannot be used as justification for removal, but requests from psychologists trained in the administration of this instrument will hopefully suffice. 69.143.138.224 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I browsed a bit in a book "What's wrong with the Rorschach?" - it all looks like quackery to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Secretiveness is a no-go here --80.129.77.4 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
copyright infringement and compromises test security 67.125.20.25 06:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
keep No new argument, 3 nominations all by ip´s, Public Domain material, bogus test security argument IMO, implicit censorship attempt. Tm (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ps: I warned the original uploader, because the requester forgot to do it.Tm (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Kept and closed for the fourth time as there are no new arguments presented. Samulili (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Images of Flickr user killerfan619
[edit]http://flickr.com/photos/27531285@N06
The user is basically uploading his favorite photos to Flickr using a "some rights reserved" license, which is why some users are uploading them to the Commons. Some of them are clearly professional photos. Some of them are my photos, which I've already tagged for speedy delete since I have the exact original source. Some of them are other fan photos.
While I can't prove that all of his photos have an invalid license, the fact that he's had so many invalid ones should be enough to have all of his photos removed. Mshake3 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, i totaly agree: I checked the upload, most of the images are without metadata, some images have metadata from 8 different cameras. Will add killerfan619 to the list of Commons:Questionable Flickr images, images from this source will get deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- A list of deleted images can be found in my log, im sorry for the work of User:Techarrow who transfered most of the images. --Martin H. (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also File:Sultan.jpg.
No obvious educational value so probably beyond project scope. Adambro (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
description states that the image was taken from the movie Twilight which is not in the public domain. --Tolanor 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks like a cop to copyvio to me ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
class room shot without any description and of low quality (blurred). --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, low quality. Plrk (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 19 January 2009; no license
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/11/28/index.php?section=sociedad&article=047n1soc here it states the photo is from "Notimex" http://www.notimex.com.mx/ Can someone check to see if that site releases its photos under a free license? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I was unable to find any such information, and it is highly probable that there is none to find. Could be speedily deleted as a copyvio. Plrk (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since January 19, 2009
Out of project scope. Unused file and no apparent use. Likely a copyright violation as a logo. Doulos Christos (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Found it - http://www.un-limitedstore.com. Tagged for speedy deletion. Doulos Christos (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Rootology: Copyright violation
i uploaded it by mistake Improvisacion-es (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I've also tagged it for speedy deletion. Plrk (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no license
Image is said to be taken in 2007, but a smaller but identical version is used in this blog post from 2006: http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2006/the-sexiest-world-cup-players.html Ytoyoda (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since January 19, 2009
dissolved into categories Maps of Steinhagen (Westfalen) and Statistics of Steinhagen (Westfalen) for handling purposes --Hagar66 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
'Deleted by Túrelio: Empty category or gallery: content was: '{{speedy|dissolved into categories Maps of Steinhagen (Westfalen) and Statistics of Steinhagen (Westfalen) for handling purposes}}
same picture can be found internet, an example http://medias.ados.fr/people/8/5/8540/Cassie-Steele/photos/72032-cassie-steele.jpg --Motopark (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no source, probably copyrighted. --Tryphon (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this image qualifies as non-free content and should be deleted. Sorry for my ignorance. I have reviewed my other contributions, and they were all self-created with imaging software. Wilhelm meis (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused personal photo with little apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Doulos Christos (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Low resolution private picture. --Tryphon (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. WJBscribe (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ubisoft press materials are not usermade Screenshot, so the selected license does not apply. We have a discussion on the same problem here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PoP2008 Environment Bright.jpg, i will add some other uploads here because Press releases or content from Ubisoft websites are not Screenshots and not covered by the agreement mentioned in {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}, the may be retouched ore they show something that never appears in an game. Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:El_Guerrero.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Traje Altaïr.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:El Alquimista.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:El Cazador.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:El principe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PrinceofPersiaLogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Assassins creed logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete PrinceofPersiaLogo.jpg and Assassins creed logo.jpg because they are logo. Flot2 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PrinceofPersiaLogo.jpg & Assassins creed logo.jpg. They're not screenshots of Ubisoft video games. --wlodi (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all of them, per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PoP2008 Environment Bright.jpg. As for the logos, they could be screeshots of the title screen, though. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Press materials are not usermade screenshots and so do not fall within the scope of license claimed. There has been no waiver of Ubisoft's copyright over their logos.WJBscribe (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Indian_Naval_bases.svg Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The svg is trying to use File:India 78.40398E 20.74980N.jpg as a background. I think this can in principle be fixed when the file contains the proper path to the file on commons. If I rmember correctly, this was done for overlay maps of the Warsaw ghetto. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it has been fixed by User:Rama. --Tryphon (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Martin H. (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
apparent flickrvio - username is "portia de rossi" and stream has 4 low-res no-exif-data images of portia de rossi Mangostar (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
All his photos are claimed to be taken on the same day despite them clearly being taken in several different areas, no meta data on about the camera. Seems suspicious to say the least. --Ted87 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused file and no apparent use. Hard to tell what this even is. Doulos Christos (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Indeed. Plrk (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, unused and uncategorized. Bidgee (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused file and no apparent use. Hard to tell what this even is. Doulos Christos (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Indeed. Plrk (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, unused and uncategorized. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not free on the web site it is stated : « En téléchargeant cette photographie, je m’engage à l’utiliser uniquement pour des publications militantes de gauche non marchandes (tracts, journaux, sites Internet), pour le journal Rouge, ou pour toute publication clairement identifiée LCR. Pour tout autre cas et pour toute publication commerciale, une autorisation préalable est nécessaire, des droits d’auteur pouvant alors être réclamés sur cette photographie. » --- Zil (d) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. The image can be seen here, and when clicking on the link Télécharger la photo en haute définition, the above notice is displayed. Clearly a copyvio. --Tryphon (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted and used without permission. Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: personal data in text form. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
When I look at the meta data I doubt this is own work Abigor talk 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader User:Cvdv probably owns the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Evidently a variant derived from the image shown here. Delete unless we get an OTRS release. Lupo 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Evidently a variant derived from the image shown here.
Deleted, no permission. Ciell (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
copyvio from [3] Ikiwaner (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the design of this board game is copyrighted. --Tryphon (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the signature and [4] (which also has a high-resolution version with a more readable signature), this is a photograph by "Jonals Co.". "Jonals Co." was a company founded by photographer Herman Bente (1881–1947), so it would seem the photograph is still copyrighted. Hemmingsen (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused anywhere and I've no idea what this is. If a source is found, it's likely a copyrighted logo. Doulos Christos (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused anywhere and I've no idea what this is. If a source is found, it's likely a copyrighted logo. Doulos Christos (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the picture on the box of the game is surely copyrighted. --Tryphon (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- keep. No Threshold of originality. --Peng (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio of the printed design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Game was created in 1946. Still under copyright. Pruneautalk 12:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio of the printed design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted. Pruneautalk 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio of the printed design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Pruneautalk 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio of the printed design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games Polarlys (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Pruneautalk 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works Polarlys (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio (the game was created in 2000). Pruneautalk 12:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works Polarlys (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Pruneautalk 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games Polarlys (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted. Pruneautalk 12:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games Polarlys (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
keep. Der Spielplan ist lediglich eine übliche Landkarte. Die Spieleschachtel sind nur halb zu sehen. Das Material fällt nicht unter die Board-Game- Richtlinie. --Peng (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even “common maps” are creative works protected by copyright. 90 % of the image’s size is filled with other people’s work.
- Auch “übliche Landkarten” sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. 90 % des Bildes besteht aus der (abphotographierten) Arbeit Dritter.
- BTW: Commons is an international place and considering your babel templates you speak English. Users from other countries should understand your arguments. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- This map has no Schöpfungshöhe, cause you can find it in any schoolbook. It is not fiction, it s Europe! You cannot delete photos of a map of Europe. So keep. --Peng (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- A painted map is a work of art protected by copyright. Most maps in school books are protected by copyright as well. --Polarlys (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A map of Europe can be copyrighted. See Commons:Image_casebook#Maps. Pruneautalk 12:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio of the printed design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent work of art. I'm unaware of the existence of a FOP for Chile. Eusebius (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted in the absence of any known law in Chile which protects the photographer from infringing the copyright in this work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The official blog is not (clearly) free licensed Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I found the same photo here. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
no info given on artist, who does not appear to be the same as teh uploader. other images by the same artist have been deleted previously http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Immodinova_C._images_(2007-04-01) Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence from artist MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of Daisunhantan
[edit]- File:Dathachanhtimnhantao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Da quy thach anh tim nhan tao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Copy of da thach anh day nui 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Copy (2) of thachanhtimnui499.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These are possibly copyright violations unless Daisunhantan really is the copyright holder. Otherwise, these seem highly promotional, thus outside COM:SCOPE. OTOH, we may be able to find use for the latter two at least. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The first two are very small professionally-taken images with no metadata. I doubt whether the uploader is the copyright holder. The last two have metadata, and look less professional (two cameras used, though). MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Bookcover with drawing by en:Miloš Popović (1876-1954). --Jergen (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- According to sr:Милош_Поповић, the book was printed 1908. According to this overview, Yugoslavia joined the Bern Convention in 1930, with a copyright protection of 50 years. So even if one reads that as 50 years post mortem, copyright would have expired in 1954 + 50 = 2004, assuming it was Popovic who made that cover for his book. Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Serbia (and Montenegro) introduced a 70 years post mortem rule on December 24, 2004 (see [5]). Following the Berne Convention Popovic's copyright would have expired on January 1, 2005. So this image seems to be protected until January 1, 2024. Delete --Jergen (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Serbia (and Montenegro) introduced a 70 years post mortem rule on December 24, 2004 (see [5]). Following the Berne Convention Popovic's copyright would have expired on January 1, 2005. So this image seems to be protected until January 1, 2024.
Deleted per Jergen MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Undeleted 2025 now Abzeronow (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
out of project scope abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 21:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Could be used tro illuminate any voting page MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This image is now redundant to its vectorised equivalent; it is the weaker image due to its JPEG artefacts and excess whitespace above the symbols.. @MichaelMaggs: as you have previously rejected the deletion of this file, the deletion wizard asked me to contact you. GKFXtalk 21:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete – a fossil JPEG waste product of no historical value. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
tunis 90.0.90.77 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a reason motivating this request?
Info: the building is very probably not protected in Tunisia (in spite of absence of FOP), architect (Jean-Émile Resplandy) would have been 93 years old in 1959 (PD-Tunisia is 50 years after death of author), but I couldn't find out when he actually died. --Eusebius (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to suppress this picture. I think this IP doesn't know either as I read his explanation. Moumou82 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
no tienen ningún enlace Lsch-stgo (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, not used. Yann (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Most likely copyvio on Flickr. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why?? If you go to his Flickr's albums, he doesnt have all of his pictures in the same license, i know him from www.bacanalnica.com and he is a known photographer in Managua, and he put some of his work in common lincence 2.0. He put the watermark because some people in the miss nicaragua forum always are taking his pics without his knowledge, and even erasing the watermark. --Vrysxy (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept, clearly the same person see his website. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
copyright : wikipedia:fr:Fichier:Logo des Girondins de Bordeaux.svg Dionysostom (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The V is too simple to be copyrighted (it's not even accurate), and the sign above it is in the public domain:
Luctor 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- agencing a lot of image with free right can create at the end just nearly any pictures. By the way you ve handle things you've just recreated the same image. Is there creation ? no : because you took 4/5 items and you put them together to make it look like exactly something that is under copyright. in France we call that a "contrefaçon" (counterfeit) and as you must know it's punished by law in many countries:) Dionysostom (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- In order to avoid risk of copyright (by creating nothing since you take free image and redo the same thing) others has suggested this one File:600px Dark blue with V2.png. It's clearly not copyrightable while the one here shows clearly limits to the copyright. Dionysostom (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- agencing a lot of image with free right can create at the end just nearly any pictures. By the way you ve handle things you've just recreated the same image. Is there creation ? no : because you took 4/5 items and you put them together to make it look like exactly something that is under copyright. in France we call that a "contrefaçon" (counterfeit) and as you must know it's punished by law in many countries:) Dionysostom (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Luctor. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
unclear that this is PD-old, based on the web site, photo taken between 1889 to 1897. No author provided --- Zil (d) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- How long was the term for copyright protection of photos in France before 1900? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this picture very interesting as one of the first pictures of a submarine in action.
Deleted, it might be PD-anonymous, but I'm not 100% sure. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)