Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/08
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
Contents
- 1 August 1
- 2 August 2
- 3 August 3
- 4 August 4
- 5 August 5
- 6 August 6
- 7 August 7
- 8 August 8
- 9 August 9
- 10 August 10
- 11 August 11
- 12 August 12
- 12.1 Image:Impatiens nolitangere.jpg
- 12.2 Image:Chicago-top-down-view01.jpg
- 12.3 Images with source/license questions
- 12.4 Image:Flowering grass (unknown species - to be rotated).jpg
- 12.5 Bidens triplinervia and Bidens triplinervia macrantha
- 12.6 image:LocationPakistan.png
- 12.7 Image Spin.jpg
- 12.8 Chinese currency
- 12.9 Image:United States Geological Survey logo.png
- 13 August 13
- 14 August 14
- 15 August 15
- 16 August 16
- 17 August 17
- 18 August 18
- 19 August 19
- 20 August 20
- 21 August 21
- 22 August 22
- 23 August 23
- 24 August 24
- 25 August 25
- 26 August 26
- 27 August 27
- 28 August 28
- 29 29 August
- 30 August 30
- 30.1 Image:Wtcdevil1.jpg
- 30.2 Image:2 women outside in a city 01.jpg
- 30.3 Image:Two women in red dresses.jpg
- 30.4 Image:Scopus umbretta.jpg
- 30.5 Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein by Ehrenfest.jpg
- 30.6 Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein2 by Ehrenfest.jpg
- 30.7 Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein3 by Ehrenfest.jpg
- 30.8 Image:Mariana flag large.png
- 31 31 August
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt it is PD, it says on the images page "Fair Use Images. Noncommercial" It was deleted from Wikinews and moved over to Commons. The story on Wikinews that is goes with was also deleted --Cspurrier 14:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nadia Russ website (nadiaruss.com) has the word "Copyright" all over the place. Deleted, Thuresson 00:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While both photos have been tagged with the CC license, there is no way we know that the author of the images gave permission for their use. Now, the author is off the site, which is http://www.flickr.com/photos/dokbob1723/12939434/. Also, there was a debate at the English Wikipedia about the use of the images and also the age of the girls. We also doubt the girls consented for their photo to be put online. Delete. Zscout370 (sound off) 08:34, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
- Can you please inform the uploader that their images are on Deletion requests? Thanks -- Joolz 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Zscout370 (sound off) 01:19, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
- I am not a physician but, just as a father of 3 children (now much older), I seriously doubt the two girls (at least the white one) are more than 14, or maximum 15 years old. No matter the copyright violation, consent is out of question for such young girls, nude or not, abusively presented as women. I propose immediate deletion --Marc M., Bruxelles (be) 21:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the girls' legal guardians had given permission for the photos to be published, I think we could keep them. But I see no evidence that such permission exists, so I agree with deletion. dbenbenn | talk 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with deletion (but wouldn't like to guess at their ages), I do not see that these are usable anywhere. -- Joolz 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw these pictures on flickr and they where cc-by-sa. But they violate the personal rights of the girls and should be deleted. -guety 02:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use --FML hi 12:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use --FML hi 12:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown copyright status, also obsoleted by a better version: Image:Transperth Stirling Train Station.jpg. --Shinjiman 13:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source RadioActive 13:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copied from Hungarian Wikipedia, but it has been deleted there, since it had no information either on its source or its copyright status. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requested for deletion because under the name Image:Flag of Cordoba province in Argentina.gif a better version of the flag is available. BTW: How do I find out which wikipedia is still using a specific picture? --ALE! 07:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Use check-usage to see where this flag is used. Thuresson 11:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it can be deleted than, as it is not used any more. --ALE! 13:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted --Paddy 03:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images are copyrighted. --Leipnizkeks 06:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Image:Logo-nasa-800px.png I agree but Image:NASA logo bw.png I don't know... It's very low resolution, I think it is public domain. --FML hi 08:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. You don't achieve a new copyright for setting a picture on low resolution, black/white color and higher contrast. --Leipnizkeks 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Logos are considered fair use, see: Wikipedia:Logos --Munchkinguy 03:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They are considered fair use for Wikipedia, however this is Commons. Uploading it at WP wouldn't be an issue, however here - it isn't a "free" image. --Mrmiscellanious 03:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
deleted: Image:NASA logo bw.png the other one needs to take out of several article. --Paddy 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted the second one as well, Thuresson 11:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 19
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 11:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WikiNewsSkin-800x600.png Image:Wikifox.jpg Image:WorldLink.jpg Image:Wyspy zawadowskie 2.jpg Image:Wyspy zawadowskie.jpg Image:Xiayang.jpg Image:Yalongwan.jpg Image:Youp et youp.ogg Image:ZAF Gebäude Würzburg.jpg Image:Zeer mooi straatbeeld.jpg Image:Zelenika.jpg Image:Údoli Indu v Himalaji.jpg Image:Екатерининский дворец,Большой зал,Фото 1944 года.jpg Image:Памуккале.jpg Image:首-3 edited.jpg Image:000.jpg Image:001.jpg Image:0b4dbe904394456d0500f92a6db3b3ed-3.jpg Image:100jaarGentsetram.jpg Image:171 winter1.jpg Image:1turkish lira coin back.jpg Image:20030114211402.jpg Image:20040821122048.JPG Image:2005-07-18-1749-Peillon.jpg Image:20050703 200855 dsc 0827.jpg Image:20050703 201009 dsc 0831.jpg Image:3-488-1.pdf Image:500KMF obverse.jpg Image:56 kg chui road melons.jpg Image:57 kg issyk mount nord1.jpg Image:800px-WNN hq.jpg Image:911.jpg Image:91151505.jpg Image:AKS1.JPG Image:Aarhus DK Gastronimie am Kanal Feb 04.jpg Image:AbdulBaha1.jpg Image:Aberystwyth front.jpg Image:Adam ss.gif Image:Adamsystem.jpg Image:Administration Building of Port Mathurin.jpg Image:Agripina.jpg Image:Ahvaz location in Iraq.png Image:Aland map.jpg Image:Albacete Balompie.gif Image:Alliance.jpg Image:Almez.jpg
- Image:Alcoholico.jpg This is a personal image of mine, My property. If it needs that statement, tell me how to proceed, and contact me asap. thank you CharlesWiki 19:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Tags added as per the user's statement in w:es. Taragüí @ 16:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Image:信義區3.JPG i moved this one out of the big block as i belive it may be a case for {{OwnWork}} (from the fact that the description ends with the owners name) but i can't read chineese so can someone translate the rest of the text? Plugwash 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Babelfish comes with this: Taibei 101 authors: Joe.H.K.
- Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-Gold.png - removed as under CopyrightByWikimedia. -Stevertigo 01:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Youp et youp.ogg : cet enregistrement date de 1927, il a donc 78 ans (78 years old!). Je crois qu'on peut le considérer comme du Domaine public (Public domain). De toutes façons, à défaut, il s'agit d'une courte citation audio qui est légale. Roby 07:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All photos tagged or deleted, Thuresson 11:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Musical excerpts
[edit]User:Boris Fernbacher claims he own the copyright on the following excerpts. Obvious infringement on the copyright of several artists/composers:
- Bruce Springsteen: Image:Thishardlandguitar.mid, Image:Junglelandjazz1.mid, Image:Junglelandljazz2.mid
- Modern Talking: Image:YouAreMyHeartMelodie.mid, Image:YoucanwinMelodie.mid, Image:YouAreMyHeartPiano.mid, Image:GeronimosCadillacRiff.mid, Image:GeronimosCadillacDrums.mid, Image:BrotherLouieDrums.mid
- Toto: Image:CantStopLovingYou.mid
- Mike Oldfield: Image:TubularBells.mid
- Marillion: Image:Kayleigh.mid, Image:Kayleigh2.mid
- Yes: Image:Soundchaser.mid, Image:Soundchaser2.mid
Thuresson 10:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete --Paddy 03:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 20
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 16:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AloysiaTriphyllaZitronenverbene10.jpg Image:Amylee1.jpg Image:Ana1.jpg Image:Andere poort.jpg Image:Angora kato.jpg Image:Ankara.jpg Image:Anti Perang.jpg Image:AntoniZdrojewski.jpg Image:Aphrodite.jpg Image:Arhangelsky Sobor (Kreml).JPG Image:Arica.jpg Image:Arlempdes village.png Image:Armagh-Observatory.jpg Image:Armoiries geneve ville.gif Image:Arthur Conan Doyle.jpg Image:Atlantic cup 2005 002.jpg Image:Autism pride.jpg Image:Autruche.jpg Image:Autumn.jpg Image:Avión antigo.jpg Image:Aysha velox male3.png Image:B4a delhi700.jpg Image:BBlsnChrbb.jpg Image:BBlsnGrfbb.jpg Image:BON-Marke.jpg Image:BabElMandeb.jpg Image:Bahia Marsella Nicaragua Central america.JPG Image:Bahiatxiki.gif Image:Bali - Ulu Watu Steilküste klein.jpg Image:Bandangeles.jpg Image:Bandeira sorocaba.jpg Image:Bandeira.gif Image:Bandera argentina.JPG Image:Bandera de Marbella.png Image:Bandera de Oviedo.gif Image:Bandera espinar.jpg Image:Bandera.gif Image:Bandp.jpg Image:Bandvaldivia.jpg Image:Banting04.JPG Image:BarVict208a.jpg Image:Baron A. de Gerlache.jpg Image:Basilica Menor de San Loren.jpg Image:Basilica Menor de San Lorenzo.jpg Image:BasiliqueDeLisieux.jpg Image:Baustelle-commons.png Image:Baustelle-de.png Image:Bellefontaine seal.png Image:Benin coa.png Image:Bg121.png Image:Belgrano sinking1.jpg
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 23:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
SUB Inside
[edit]User:Thangmar uploaded some pics of the interior of Goettingen University Library (SUB), see SUB Göttingen#Inside. I like the pics and the idea of having a virtual walk in other libraries. But without permission, this would violate German law.
Especially problematic are the pictures of Artwork and plans:
- Image:Göttingen-SUB-atrium.03.JPG
- Image:Göttingen-SUB-painting.JPG
- Image:Göttingen-SUB-model sculpture.Göttinger.Sieben.JPG
- Image:Göttingen-SUB-wireless.Lan.coverage.JPG
- Image:Göttingen-SUB-magazine-map.JPG
--Warden 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modern artwork is problematic but which law prohibits making photographs pf PD objects? --80.132.87.62 23:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Innenaufnahmen sind nicht generell unzulässig!
Darf man Gebäude und öffentlich aufgestellte Kunstwerke fotographieren und auf einer Website veröffentlichen?
Nach § 54 Abs. 1 Z 5 UrhG ist es zulässig,
- 1. Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder
- 2. andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die sich an einem dem öffentlichen Verkehr dienenden Orte bleibend befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen und durch Rundfunk zu senden.
Fotos von (auch privaten) Gebäuden oder Gebäudeteilen dürfen daher immer veröffentlicht werden, soweit sie öffentlich zugänglich oder einsehbar sind, Fotos von Kunstwerken (Statuen, Reliefe, Wandmalereien) nur dann, wenn sie sich an einem öffentlichen Ort befinden.
- Ein Museum gilt nicht als öffentlicher Ort.
- Von solchen Kunstwerken angefertigte Fotos können auch kommerziell verwertet werden.
- Die Abbildungen dürfen aber nicht verändert (beispielsweise stilisiert wiedergegeben) werden.
--> Die SUB Göttingen ist kein Museum, sondern eine öffentliche und jedermann zugängliche Bibliothek, also ein öffentlicher Ort nach § 54 I Nr. 1 UrhG. Es ist dort nicht verboten, Fotos zu machen. Personen sind nicht bzw. nicht individuell erkennbar fotografiert worden. Weiter handelt es sich auch beim Bibliotheksgebäude selbst um ein "Werk der Baukunst" in sich selbst, da sie ein hervorragendes Beispiel moderner Architektur ist. Die dort abgebildeten Werke der bildenden Kunst nach Werkstücken fallen unter § 54 I Nr. 2 UrhG und dürfen fotografiert werden. Der Löschantrag ist also nicht notwendig. Thangmar 12:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Was die Pläne angeht, so ist beim Urheberrechtsschutz wohl eher auf kommerzielle Stadtpläne abzuheben. Der Magazinplan erreicht in jedem Fall nicht die zum Urheberrechtsschutz erforderliche nötige Schöpfungshöhe. Er ist rein funktionaler Natur und wird ca. alle 6 Monate überklebt, wenn einzelne Jahrgänge, z.B. 2000, in das andere Magazin umgeräumt werden. Auch der Funk-LAN-Plan ist lediglich informativ, vermutlich nicht einmal aktuell. Daher auch hier keine nötige Schöpfungshöhe. Thangmar 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
English: Deletion request unwarranted because of explicit licence in $ 54 UrhG. Thangmar 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thangmar,
Du zitierst österreichisches Recht; da Göttingen in Deutschland liegt, sollte deutsches Recht greifen. Aber in Deutschland gibt es vergleichbares, den § 59 UrhG "Werke an öffentlichen Plätzen" ( vgl de:Panoramafreiheit). Dort heißt es:
- (1) Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der :Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich :wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht.
Die Bibliothek ist zwar allgemein zugänglich, trotzdem nicht "öffentlich" im Sinne des Paragraphen: Sie ist Eigentum der Universität, die das Hausrecht hat. Somit greift die Panoramafreiheit nicht.
Die Aufnahmen der Gemälde und Skulpturen verletzen also definitiv das Urheberrecht des Malers/Bildhauers.
Bilder des Gebäudes von Innen, z.B. Image:Göttingen-SUB-atrium.02.JPG verletzen die Rechte des Architekten.
Bei den Plänen kann man sich streiten. Eine geistige Schöpfungshöhe würde ich so schnell nicht absprechen. Das Argument der Aktualität zählt aber nicht.
Bei den restlichen Bildern, z.B. denen der Bücher oder des Kataloges bin ich mir auch nicht 100% sicher, denke aber, dass sie das Hausrecht der Universität verletzen.
Sehr gut finde ich dazu auch diese Seite.
- Let's get this straight: "Panoramafreiheit" allows members of the public to photograph objects in public places, it doesn't say explicitly that photos taken in other places are illegal, does it? Somebody wrote: Fotos von Kunstwerken (Statuen, Reliefe, Wandmalereien) nur dann, wenn sie sich an einem öffentlichen Ort befinden.. I think that's stretching the logic a bit too far. If you know in detail what is allowed, you know nothing of what is not allowed.
- Neither do I think concerns about the lawful rights of the architect are relevant here. His/her copyright to the design of a building will stop others from building a copy, not taking photos. WikiCommons allow photos of people with designer clothes, doesn't it? Why should designer buildings be treated differently?
- This is a thorny issue. Let's assume that a fictional country do not allow its citizens to take photos at all (Panoramafreihet in the negative). What then should be done if somebody still uploaded recent photos from that country? Althogh the photos were taken in breach of law, what should concern us is if a photo is in breach of somebody else's copyright, not somebody else's rules. Thuresson 19:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There a several aspects:
(1) Which country's laws are relevant to commons? This is a general Internet/globalization-problem. There are at least three different possibilities: (i) the server's location, that is the US. (ii) The uploader's nationality (iii) The country in which the photo had been taken.
I think all three have to be respected because: If we do not respect (i) they will close down the server. If the uploader does not respect (ii) she can get trouble with her local law enforcement. And the third is important to people out of that country who want to use the photos freely. Suppose there is our BannedCountry where it is totally illegal to take photos and even to show and use photos of the country. Alice is an American tourist visiting BannedCountry, taking photos and uploading them on commons. She will probably not get any trouble. But suppose Bob from BannedCountry wants to use these images. He will get trouble with his country's law, something hed did not expect from free images.
A more realistic case of BannedCountry can be seen at French copyright-law and the Eiffel-Tower, cmp Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives04#Image:Tour_Eiffel_nuit_Concorde.jpg. If Alice as American tourist takes photos of Eiffel-Tower by
night with the copyrighted lighting, that would probably cause no trouble to her. But if Francois from France would use this image in a book about Paris, he could get sued by SNTE, the copyright-owner of the light-installation.
If there is agreement until here, one can discuss the
(2) Situation in Germany: §2 UrhG defines which works fall under copyright. It includes architecture ("Werke der Baukunst"). §15 UrhG states that the author has exclusive exploitation right ("ausschließliches Verwertungsrecht") including the right to make photos. This is also described in Commons:Licensing#Scope_of_Licensing. Only §59 ("Panoramafreiheit") makes exceptions of this if the object is permanently installed in public. That is: Making photos of architecture from the outside is no problem, making photos from the inside breaks the rights of the architect.
(3) Not discussed is the problem of the sanctity of the home ("Hausrecht") of the library: Can they forbid taking photos and if it is forbidden, can we still upload photos that violate their ban? This would oftern concern pictures of railway-stations too. --Warden 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork is clearly modern (and thus I am pretty sure the artists are not 70 years dead), hence delete, clear violation of German copyright law, regardless of the arguments above, and it's very well possible that there will be an artist (or rather artist's heir or even more likely a artists' rights society like VG Bild) who will sue about copyright infringement. About the maps, I am not sure, I guess the "creational level" may not be high enough for them to be protected, and I doubt if anyone will actually ever claim a copyright on these simple designs. --AndreasPraefcke 18:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion closed, Thuresson 01:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The only photo previousely included here had been misidentified. So the page is empty now and should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Paddy 01:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The information contained within this website is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved. [1] How is this PD? -guety 01:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not every photo on a U.S. government website is public domain, because not every photo on U.S. government websites is actually produced by the U.S. government; especially unlikely are images that have German writing on them. There is no specific source given for the image, but in fact it is very easy to guess from the name that it came from http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/zeppelin/LTA8G10.htm which actually specifically credits "DJAirships.net" which apparently is Daniel J. Grossman of [2] (see his email) and the photo is in fact on this page of his. So, it's a 1930s German postcard, and copyrighted unless someone can prove the author of the copyright died more than 70 years ago, which seems unlikely given the time frame.--Pharos 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this is a fairy tale. This picture was published around 1935 under KUG copyrightlaw. Its copyright vanished 1955. There was no contact with the modern german copyright law (or even EU-law). Try to start a lawsuit against DJairships and US-Goverment. Have fun.
- Well, it was tagged as a U.S. government photom which was clearly false and that's why I put it here. I don't know about the application of KUG copyright law but looking into modern German copyright law I see the copyright period for photograph lasts for only 50 years after publication, and so I've taken off the deletion notice and replaced the Template:PD-USGov tag with the Template:PD-Germany tag. Pending any contradicting info, I consider this matter to be resolved, and I withdraw my nomination to delete.--Pharos 07:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not correct: german law make a distinction between "trivial photos" (Lichtbilder, which are free 50 years after publication) und "artistic photos" (Lichtbildwerke, which become PD 70 years after the photographer has died) - see de:Bildrechte for details. The distinction is very blurry, but in recent times, most photos seem to be considered "artistic" per default. As I don't think that this image can be considered trivial, it is quite possible that it is still copyrighted. If the image was published anonymously, the copyright expires 70 years after publication - but before assuming this, a serious attempt to find the author should have been made.
- Regarding the copyright law in general: AFAIK, the modern german copyright laws apply even if the images where made during the Nazi rule or in the Weimar Republic. -- Duesentrieb 13:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I certainly cannot claim competence to distinguish between simple photos and art photos under German copyright law, if such a distinction is rationally possible at all; I'll trust that to your best judgement. What constitues anonymous publication- is it simply not having the photographer's name printed on the postcard? We can presumably inquire about whether credit is given on the postcard and the date of publication from Daniel J. Grossman, the owner of the original web source of www.airships.net.--Pharos 05:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See now the comprehensive article on anonymous works in de:Anonyme Werke (Urheberrecht). It is necessary that the photographer never has been identified or that he never has put his name on a copy (according to the old version of German Copyright Law which is still in use for pictures made before July 1, 1995 if they were protected according the old version longer than now). --134.130.68.65 23:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC) = --Historiograf 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is another picture like this (Image:Cruz e Sousa.jpg) and it's used in no site. --Giro720 22:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Paddy 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I forgot a s. Please to delete this category.
Thaaaaanks !--Valérie75 14:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Valérie75 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: Vulgar --Hullbr3ach 16:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- deleted. no room for discussion. -- Duesentrieb 17:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON Wrong file name. Reloaded with new file name Cambridge Bay terminal CambridgeBayWeather 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. now someone must delete the sam image on en WP. --Paddy 15:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Child art images
[edit]- Image:Child Art Aged 2.5 Blue Fish Large and Small.png <-- unused
- Image:Child Art Aged 2.5 Smiley Face with Writing Underneath.png <-- unused
- Image:Child scribble age 1y10m.jpg <-- used in en wp
Not used in any project except on commons (#3 is used in en WP) rather random scribble than piece of art. If #3 "shows coordination of colour" I doubt! #1 and #2 are also bad quality and visably modified by the parents. --Paddy 15:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like them. And they could be used easily in projects. And they are 100% better than the mock child-art we see in advertisement so often. So, if you want to prove a point about real and mock child art, and don't have a child at hand, you can use a picture from commons. :-) --AndreasPraefcke 19:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usable in several contexts. Cnyborg 11:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am uploader of #3. The purpose of these images is to illustrate the development of drawing. All three are genuine. 1 and 2 are not used on the w:child art to avoid it becoming overloaded with images. #3 is of course a random scribble, it illustrates the first stage of drawing: random scribbling. Zeimusu 13:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for this to be really useful, we would need some more examples of drawings by children of different ages. I don't think we can use hundreds of pictures of this sort, but a dozen or so seem useful to me. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All kept. -- Joolz 19:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete the old version (21:52, August 9 2005 UTC, (316689 bytes)) of the screenshot because of privacy issues. Sorry to bother you. --5ko 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and reloaded a smaller version. --Paddy 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Actally the smaller in pixels version is larger in bytes, re-uploaded it. Cheers, --5ko 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures representing the Louvre pyramid may cause legal troubles. Pei, the architect of the pyramid and so beneficiary, forbid to take photos of it. It should exist a solution : It's impossible to take pictures of the Louvre under some angles without having the pyramid on the picture, but some pictures of Commons still are poblematic : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris_Louvre_Pyramid_Sunset.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LouvrePyramide.jpg These pictures contain almost no architectural elements of the old parts of the Louvre. Traroth 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it legal to make it unlegal taking photos of a public building from the outside? --ALE! 21:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it is permanent it is not! Keep --Paddy 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)--Paddy 14:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Might be the case in Germany, it is not the case in France. i thought Commons was going by the smalles common denominator. Those images are completely copyright infringing according to French law. notafish }<';> 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete if: It's not that simple; at Commons:Licensing, it's stated that under French law, the architect of a notable building owns copyright to that building. It's not illegal to take pictures of the building, but they cannot be released under a free license ( a non-commercial licence might be OK). So if the information at the licensing page is correct, delete. If it's not correct, someone with better knowledge of French copyright laws needs to take a look at that page. Cnyborg 03:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and rethink the deletion policy: It is legal to make such fotos. It is unlegal to sell or use it for advertisement, promotion or commercials. It must not be altered. This issue is not limited to france. It is a problem in most countrys. Most astonishing is the keep of Paddy, one of the hardliners in copyright questions who left wikipedia to start a real encyclopaedia. So welcome back my friend. Now the conclusion: Paddy is wrong, this pictures (and all pictures of newer buildings) may cause legal trouble (except in germany with its Panoramafreiheit, but they are still non derivate), but they can be used in the wikipedia without problems. It could be used as free picture even if you sell a wikireader. Please keep and rethink the deleting policy.
- Agree with the comment on Paddy's position on this, a strange one if any. Again, I thought Commons did not allow picture that could not be reused commercially. These pictures cannot be commercialized, therefore they cannot stay. notafish }<';> 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In a lot of countries in Europe it is legal to take photos of buildings from public places. In France, it is not legal if the owner/artist does not allow that. --Huebi 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: This is french law, the Pyramid by itsels such as presented on both those pictures infringes a "droit d'auteur" in France. Pei does not allow pictures of the Pyramid for public use. We are supposed to offer free content, those pictures are not free. notafish }<';> 12:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as can be seen on Commons:Image copyright tags visual there are many licenses for which the image is in the public domain except in the country of origin. Should all these images be deleted too, or are we all going to bend over backwards for France? Alphax 11:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why did we ever ban fair use from Commons then? I wonder... notafish }<';> 12:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion closed, image kept. Thuresson 05:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds did you make that decision? There are more votes speaking out for deletion than against; I demand a plausible statement about the legal issues. As things are, this is a picture of a copyrighted work of art in France, and the photographer cannot put this under a free license ignoring the rights of Mr. Pei. To put it short: This image is a copyright violation in a major European state. That's a fact you can't just ignore. --Fb78 09:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion has been going on for 7 weeks. A decision should be made quickly, photos shouldn't permanently be tagged with the "deletion request" tag. If the case is clear, why didn't somebody delete the photo in August? Thuresson 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this discussion hasn't produced a result yet. I'm just saying: If we make a decision here, it will concern all pictures of copyrighted buildings in France. So if we decide to keep it, we make a case to also keep every other picture that is a potential copyright violation in France.
- If you want a decision now, delete the image. I'm counting four votes for deletion, two against. --Fb78 09:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete: the creator of 3D artwork like sculpures (and, in many countries, non-trivial architecture) has rights to any pictures taken of that art. In many places, but not in France, there is an exception for art that is permanently accessible to the public (like buildings or sculptures in public places).
Also, if the image is a copyright violation in France (which it is, IMHO), it's a copyright violation in any country that has treaties about copyright with France, i.e. all EU contries, the US, and many more. Note that the place of creation and publication of the original work (i.e. in this case the building) determines the law to apply - otherwise, Micky Mouse would be PD in Europe... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep images where the Louvre pyramid is just one element among others. Image:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg falls under this definition, Image:LouvrePyramide.jpg doesn't. I don't much like a "lowest common denominator" approach, and I'm strongly against complying with insane, highly specific laws. However, many countries (including Germany) have laws or rulings related to permanently visible works of art. As per Commons:Licensing, there is a French court ruling according to which art in a larger setting must be treated differently from photos where the work of art is the clear center. Now, there may be different interpretations, but when it comes to interpreting laws, we should generally try to find the most permissive solution.--Eloquence 17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about something I don't see? The pyramid is clearly the dominating element on Image:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg. I can't see how you could win this case in court.
- Additionally, the description page states explicitly: "This photograph shows the Louvre pyramid (Paris, France) at sunset." Has the photographer misinterpreted his own intention?
- We have to comply with the laws we have, not with the laws we would like to have. --Fb78 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The pyramid is merely an element of a larger picture, as the description clearly states. Furthermore, its architectural features are barely visible thanks to the sunset. We come here not to law, but to the interpretation thereof, and especially when it comes to highly local laws, we should be generous in our interpretations. In some cases (e.g. political laws, subject-specific laws) I would advocate openly ignoring them, as most everyone else is doing. There's no need for us to be excessively conservative in these matters, and we should avoid paranoia, especially when we haven't yet received even the hint of a complaint.--Eloquence 19:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this whole discussion started because we have received the hint of a complaint. See here the email from the RNM. notafish }<';> 12:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The pyramid is merely an element of a larger picture, as the description clearly states. Furthermore, its architectural features are barely visible thanks to the sunset. We come here not to law, but to the interpretation thereof, and especially when it comes to highly local laws, we should be generous in our interpretations. In some cases (e.g. political laws, subject-specific laws) I would advocate openly ignoring them, as most everyone else is doing. There's no need for us to be excessively conservative in these matters, and we should avoid paranoia, especially when we haven't yet received even the hint of a complaint.--Eloquence 19:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me quote the passage from Commons:Licensing that you are talking about. It's a quote from a French court decision:
- Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public
- This was a rather liberal court decision. The company that lights the Eiffel tower at night can claim a copyright for their work, that's the standard we're looking at.
- The depiction we are talking about is neither "blended into the architectural ensemble" nor "accessory to the topic depicted". The photographer clearly chose a frame where you could see the pyramid only, as if it was a free standing object. There is only a small part of the other buildings visible, almost just a hint. So it was his artistic decision to make the pyramid the center of the picture and remove the context of the larger ensemble.
- I'm sure Mr. Pei would see it this way, and so would any European court. --Fb78 20:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me quote the passage from Commons:Licensing that you are talking about. It's a quote from a French court decision:
- The court examined a case different from this one; it is difficult to extrapolate how they would find here. Other factors would come into play, such as the fact that the pyramid itself is barely visible. The crucial and deciding aspect is that it is part of a larger, panoramic picture -- and that is the most common standard which allows depicting protected, permanently publicly visible works of art. It is very likely that French law and interpretation thereof, in the process of EU harmonization, will gravitate towards that standard.
- The other problem with the conservative interpretation is that it leads to absurd conclusions. For example, we have Image:Louvre Pyramide 2.jpg, which I'm sure you will agree depicts sufficient external context. However, the overall resolution and level of detail depicted of the pyramid itself is much higher. It would be obviously absurd to delete a smaller image that shows less detail of the protected work of art.--Eloquence 20:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't follow your reasoning. I'm talking about relative size, not about absolute size. The relative size of the pyramid in Image:Louvre Pyramide 2.jpg is quite small, compared to the size of the entire picture and of the other buildings. Not so in Image:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg - here, the pyramid is taking up a large portion compared to the size of the picture. From what you're saying, a picture on a stamp would be judged differently than a poster or a billboard because it's smaller and less detailed. That's not how copyright works in this case.
- And please don't forget that German "Panoramafreiheit" is an exception to the copyright laws, not a natural liberty. Just like anybody else, I wish France granted an exception to the rule as soon as possible , but right now they're nowhere near that decision. A single liberal court rule doesn't change the law.
- If you walk into a gallery to take a snapshot of a painting by a living artist, you'll agree with me that you can't defend yourself by saying: "See, the picture also shows a part of the wall and a fraction of another, non-copyrighted painting, therefore it's not a copyright violation." But that's the case we're looking at here. --Fb78 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I copied this here from Commons:Village pump. I consider Historiograf to be one of the experts in copyright cases in the German Wikipedia. --Fb78 20:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duesentrieb is wrong. In Germany (EU member) the image is definitely no copyvio (Panoramafeiheit). A German court has recently decided that distributing pictures of the Austrian (NOTABENE creator: Austrian) artist Hundertwasser house at Vienna (NOTABENE place of creation: Austria), which were made from a house (not a public place) and which were in Austria absolutely legal, in Germany is prohibited. Keep and wait whether Commons is sued. --Historiograf 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interresting - what are the details of the case? Reasons given for the ruling?
- If this is legal usus, what are copyright treaties there for? Does this mean that the copyright of the place of creation can be ignored? The rules of which country would apply on the commons, then? Can the german wikipedia simply ignore the (up to) 120 years pma of US copyright?
- I'm confused... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC) copyied and extended my original answer from the VP -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: to respect the laws of the country of creation / first publication is currently the golden rule given in on Commons:Licensing. If Histos claim holds true, that should be changed - although that would lead to more confusion, i'm afraid. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As (most) other laws, copyright laws only apply for actions comitted on the territory of the country which made them. If you take a photo in France, the act of taking a photo is covered by French copyright law. If you distribute the image in Germany, the act of distributing is covered by German copyright law. If you make it available online, that is (potentially) covered by the law of every country where the act of making it available has an effect.
- The golden rule is a trade-off between: (1) Comply with US copyright only as this is the only place where Wikimedia can effectively be sued. (2) Comply with every copyright law worldwide as Wikimedia respects copyright law even if they can't be sued. -- 3247 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The objekt is a work by an French architect, it is located in France and the photo was taken in France. So French law is valid.
- There is no exception in the French law for artworks on public places. Maybe taking the photo for private purposes is allowed in France - but publishing is not.
- If Historiograf recommends "wait whether Commons is sued" (see above) he will also be happy to pay for this experiment at court. Therefore I see no problem in keeping. -- Simplicius 21:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE, Simplicius. It's not as simple as you say, we've been discussing that before. See the applicable case law. David.Monniaux 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Historiograf can say what he wants, these images are not free in France. Punkt. Aus. I fail to understand how the German Panoramafreiheit law would apply here. For some reason, we have decided to ban fair use from commons, under the pretext that it was not applicable in other countries than the US. Fine with me. I consider that out of simple logic, some major consideration should be given to French law in this case. If you feel this is not a problem in Germany, fine, upload it to the German Wikipedia. But Commons needs to be free for all projects, and here, it is not for the French Wikipedia, and would never be uploaded there. I feel that we cannot as of today rely on a simple jurisprudence (which in any case definitely does not apply to both these pictures). That the law may change in France is one thing, that we mind it today is another. Please let us delete these pictures from Commons. As I said, I'd be more than happy to re-upload them on the wikipedias where they are used and deemed legal. notafish }<';> 12:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE, Simplicius. It's not as simple as you say, we've been discussing that before. See the applicable case law. David.Monniaux 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: potential source of legal trouble, and a more than hypothetical one, if I recall correctly, there was already some legal fuss over this pyramid, and I do not doubt that they won't miss us if they need to make an example for some reason. Rama 12:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think Wikimedia should support the right to make and publish photographs from public spaces and places and artworks placed there. Punkt. In each single country. There is always danger of "forum shopping", searching an apt court for legal trouble. A French artist can litigate because a phograph of his work in New Zealand is published in the German branch of Wikipedia. He can choose a Canadian court for this action e.g. In Germany a court has to decide if it is competent and which law must be applied (it is possible that a German court decides according U.S. law). That are simple facts. The BGH Hundertwasser decision shows that it does'nt matter which country of origin the artwork or the artist has. German Panoramafreiheit is allowed in Art. 9 II RBÜ (exceptions for special purposes) and in a EU directive. We should allow it here too. --Historiograf 18:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Revised Berne Convention and the EU Directive allow countries to make such a exception to copyright law, they don't require it. You can distribute photos of works in public places in countries which do and you can't in countries who don't -- regardless of where the photo was taken and where the author is from. You can distribute photos of the Louvre Pyramid in Germany and you can't distribute photos of Munich's Olympic Park in France. And you can't distribute any copyrighted work online, of course. -- 3247 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Wikimedia advertises itself as a source of free media. This means we must make sure that the media are free. We should not tolerate legal tresspasses. Historiografs remark about the EU directive is interesting. Do you have a link to this directive? If so, and if we would decide to risk a court battle, we should first make sure we want this, that we have the necessary funds, and than decide the court, for instance by uploading a contested image on the german wiki, not here on commons. TeunSpaans 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit#Hinweise_auf_die_Rechtslage_in_anderen_L.C3.A4ndern @3247 I have not said the exception is required. You can also say that German law is not compatible with that directive because German law allows online uses which the directive does not. Thus you should delete all Panoramafreiheit pictures here (thousands ...). Have fun with your intolerance ... --172.176.129.241 00:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Historiograf 00:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Directive 2001/29/EC Art. 5 (3) (h) explicitly allows exceptions like Panoramafreiheit even for online access. The issue here, however, is not whether countries are bound by the Revised Berne Convention, EC Directives, etc. We have to deal with the fact that copyright laws are different.
- The applicable copyright law is not determined by the country in which the work was created. It is determined by the law in which the alleged infringment is supposed to have occurred. If you sue someone in Japan for an alleged copyright infringment in Japan, the Japanese court will just apply Japanese law and just not care about the copyright law of other countries. It will not care about German Panoramafreiheit. The only way around Japanese copyright law is to not use/publish/... the work in Japan.
- Note that Japan not only signed the Berne Convention, but it ratified it, meaning that it has created japanese laws that implement it, and deposited the text of these laws at the international Bureau managing the convention, as their ratification instruments. This means that the applicable law in Japan is the deposited text of these instruments. Japan cannot change this law and make them enforceable without first depositing the text of the amendment at the international Bureau that manages this convention. So the only text that we should look at is the text of instruments of ratifications: Verdy p 10:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with web publications like Wikimedia Commons is that they are accessible in every country. So it is quite possible that the courts of any country in the world will claim jurisdiction and use their local laws. Some countries may do this if the content is merely accessibe there, some may require that the content is in some way intended for a local audience and others might only claim jurisdiction if the main server is located there. In most countries, the courts/legislators have not yet decided on what they will do.
- There is no easy solution to this problem. Compliance with every copyright law in the world means that we have to pull every image that has not been explicitly put under a free license or the copyright of which has expired everywhere. (Note that this also includes work by governments; they are usually only public domain in the country of origin.)
- Everything else is a trade-off between the risk that Wikimedia Foundation will be sued and the goal to include as much content as possible. As Wikimedia Foundation is located in the US, which tends not to recognise judicial decisions from abroad, it is quite safe even if it only respects US copyright law. (Compliance with US copyright law is compulsory, however.) -- 3247 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find 3247's information concerning Revised Berne Convention rather useful but we should work it out more detailed. -- Simplicius 20:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fun. Change your policy and keep free picture even if it shows unfree content. There are also restrictions at US official materials, but nobody cares. So why you want to go the hard way with this proper licensed picture? You may not sell the picture itself, but there is no problem in using it in context.
Delete. These pictures are obviously legally problematic, and against the principle of Wikimedia to provide free content. Traroth 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't put the photos with more than 50% of the pyramid in francophones articles. Give a text link for francophones-but-non-french people. Greudin 16:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: This debate is marked as "closed now", but the picture is still neither deleted nor has the deletion remark been removed from the page. As the author of the photograph Paris_Louvre_Pyramid_Sunset.jpg, I got some questions:
- Dear admins, will you delete or keep my photograph now?
- Would it be of any help to change picture name and description -- e.g., to "Sunset with the court of Louvre, big wheel and the Louvre pyramid"? I remember that my original intention was to photograph the sunset and its reflection in the pyramid's glas surface, not to make exactly a representative picture of the pyramid.
Best, --Aristeas 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate has been closed. The image was not deleted. Please read the note in the discussion: "The Revised Berne Convention and the EU Directive allow countries to make such a exception to copyright law, they don't require it. You can distribute photos of works in public places in countries which do and you can't in countries who don't -- regardless of where the photo was taken and where the author is from. You can distribute photos of the Louvre Pyramid in Germany and you can't distribute photos of Munich's Olympic Park in France. And you can't distribute any copyrighted work online, of course. -- 3247 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)"
- I suppose he refers to Article 5.1 of the Berne Convention which says "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention."
- It is a very nice photo, congratulations. -- Simplicius 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The only photo (Image:Hieracium lachenalii ?0.jpg) previously included here is not Hieracium lachenalii. The identity of this photo still is uncertain. It could be another species of Hieracium or even some Crepis. Therefore I put it into Category:Cichorioideae. Moreover, I think it does not make much sense to have page names with question marks. --Franz Xaver 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. --Avatar 11:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Plant is identified and image has been uploaded again as Image:Melampyrum nemorosum (2005 07 12) .jpg
- Deleted. --Avatar 10:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Plant is identified and image has been uploaded again as Image:Melampyrum nemorosum (2005 07 15) .jpg
- Deleted. --Avatar 10:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Template:PromPerú and all images tagged with it
The template specifically states that usage of images from their site are for Wikimedia only, which is a non-free license. I don't see how we can have these images on Commons. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfree licence. -- Infrogmation 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless clarified as a free licence—has anyone tried to contact the website owner for more information? —JeremyA 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfree license. Uploader asked only for use on Wikipedia, and that's what was granted. Cnyborg 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfree license. I think the user that asked for the original permission is es:Usuario:Manuel González Olaechea y Franco... --Dodo 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. He has been asked to solve this situation but he has answered (as you can see here if you can read Spanish) that nothing can be done because of the recent changes in the Peruvian government (sic). --Dodo 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfree license. Sadly it's true. I asked him for a way to solve this. He replied saying that the political situation in his country(Perú) is not the best and it's better to wait. Therefore, there are no posibilities to get a suitable license as far as I can see. --Alhen .::··¨ 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfree license. --Ecelan 12:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteSanbec ✉ 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted.--Nilfanion 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
blurred image -- ArtMechanic 13:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These are really VERY blurred. But they are still used in es-wp. (Perhaps you can use them for an article about blurred pictures......) --Avatar 10:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of deleting these images. An article about blurred photos should have both blurry and sharp photos of the same object. Wikipedia will always be a joke as long as articles have blurry photos. Thuresson 19:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 21
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bgmagic.gif Image:Bhutannote 20 ngultrum 2000 reverse.jpg Image:Bhutannote 5 ngultrum 1974.jpg Image:Biography Lindauer-OscarArthurMoritz 1815-1866 3.0.jpg Image:Biography Lindauer-OscarArthurMoritz 1815-1866.jpg Image:Biola logo.png Image:Birkenau ruins.jpg Image:Blandin marie christine01044r.jpg Image:Blanes Aérea.JPG Image:Blick von der Ayler Kupp web.jpg Image:Bn500b 01.jpg Image:Boeing 747 heading West.jpg Image:Boeing Sonic Cruiser.jpg Image:Boggle board and scoring.jpg Image:BoliviaArms.gif Image:Bombonera.jpg Image:Bonzini B90.jpg Image:Boogieman.tw.jpg Image:Braunschweig-Burgplatz.JPG Image:Brocchinea.jpg Image:BrocchiniaReducta Flower4.jpg Image:BrocchiniaReducta Infloreszenz.jpg Image:BrocchiniaReducta Inhalt.jpg Image:Brown university from the lower green.jpg Image:Burgaz muze.jpg Image:BushMiddleFinger.jpg Image:Calango.jpg Image:Calvia2.jpg Image:Canada coat.png Image:Capitol bldg and idaho garden.JPG Image:Captain beefheart.jpg Image:Castello.gif Image:Catalina Ponor.jpg Image:Catedral and liberacion square.jpg Image:Catedral-goya.jpg Image:Catedral.jpg Image:Cath01.jpg Image:Ceausescucourt.jpg Image:Centrifugeuse (fermé).JPG Image:Centrifugeuse(ouverte).JPG Image:Champagne anyone.jpg Image:Chapelle philippsbourg.jpg Image:Chapelle.jpg Image:Charlotteskyline1.jpg Image:Chelexsaty Qazbeg.jpg Image:Chickens.jpg Image:Chineselaundry e305.jpg Image:Chumash 300.jpg Image:Circus circus Reno.jpg Image:Civiello.jpg Image:Ckstubbs.jpg
Regarding Image:Ceausescucourt.jpg listed above: it is a copy of
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceausescucourt.jpg and
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Ceausescu-processo.jpg
where this is marked as {PD}. I just forgot to put any "copyright tag", that is why it was listed as "no license" picture. --Julo 19:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to have been mistagged on en and it. It appears to be a fair use screenshot, and requires Zeimusu 00:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 03:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence for PD. --Leipnizkeks 18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be deleted if no further information is given. BTW: much better image at en:Image:FvonHayek.jpg. But without exact source. I wrote to the uploader. --Avatar 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 16:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All three photos previousely included here do not show Erigeron aurantiacus. The identity of theses photos is not clear, but the ligulate flowers are pale lilac and not orange as they are in E. aurantiacus. These photos could be Erigeron speciosus and I included them in Erigeron as unclassified images. Anyway Erigeron aurantiacus is empty now and should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. --Avatar 10:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a picture of Impatiens balsamina, not noli-tangere. Please delete or move accordingly. --Teemu Maki 04:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now: Image:Impatiens balsamina.jpg. Please add it to an according article or category if possible. --Avatar 09:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Variation of Image:Chicago top down view.png uploaded during the featured image process, didn't really turn out well. --SPUI 07:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO you should first talk with both uploaders. Also it seems that you don't notify them of the deletion request. --Avatar 09:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images with source/license questions
[edit]Image:Merlin Tonto RightSide 1.jpg, Image:Aurora board.JPG, Image:Icl opd 1.jpg. User notified and asked to clear this up. --Avatar 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. These were taken from en: where a user basically stole them from http://www.old-computers.com who do not allow commercial use or derivative work. Thuresson 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has been rotated and identified and uploaded as Image:Dactylis glomerata (2005 07 28).jpg. Taka 07:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. --Avatar 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photos previousely included were misidentified. They actually show Bidens ferulifolia. I moved the photos there. So both pages now are empty. --Franz Xaver 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So both pages now are deleted. --Avatar 10:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Disputed area between pakistan and india is not identified ur:user:wisesabre
- well, then identify it and upload the fixed version. no need for deletion. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can be deleted, because I have upload it again under the name Afbeelding:Tijgerspin_Argiope_bruennichi.jpg. Rasbak 18:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, image replaced by Image:Tijgerspin Argiope bruennichi.jpg. Thuresson 20:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Chinese currency
[edit]From Law of the People's Republic of China on the People's Bank of China
- Article 19 - It is prohibited to counterfeit or alter the renminbi. It is prohibited to sell or purchase counterfeit and altered renminbi. It is prohibited to transport, hold or use counterfeit and altered renminbi. It is prohibited to deliberately destroy or damage the renminbi. It is prohibited to illegally use images of the renminbi in advertisement, publications or other commodities.
Image:ChinaPRP901-100Yuan-1999 a.jpg Image:Chin geld01.jpg Image:Chin geld02.jpg Image:China waehrung jiao 01 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung jiao 01 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung jiao 05 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung jiao 05 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 01 1 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 01 1 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 01 2 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 01 2 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 10 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 05 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 05 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 100 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 10 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 20 s2.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 20 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 50 s1.jpg Image:China waehrung yuan 50 s2.jpg
Thuresson 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete --Shizhao 10:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Images deleted, Thuresson 16:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The USGS identifier is trademarked. The USGS Visual Identity System, including the identifier itself, is reserved for use by the USGS and its official partners and cooperators only. Use of the identifier by other entities is prohibited without prior written permission. The identifier may not be used for commercial purposes and may not be provided to a commercial source for reproduction except as authorized by the USGS. If you would like more information about the USGS Visual Identity System, you may contact visual-id@usgs.gov. See also http://www.usgs.gov/visual-id/.
- This is the info. from the website and the image has been deleted from Wikipedia. Craigy144 20:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a logo. It certainly doesn't belong on Commons, but I see absolutely no problem with it being on the English Wikipedia under fair use.--Pharos 07:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is tagged with PD-Soviet, which is for works produced in the Soviet Union before 1973. The image is from his 1975 Nobel Prize entry, and so was likely produced since 1975, and in any event was published out of the Soviet Union after that time, with a copyright claimed by the Nobel Foundation (who has their own, non-free, though generous, licensing program). So I don't think it qualifies under Commons requirements. --Fastfission 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted, Thuresson 02:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photos previousely included here were misidentified. They show plants from Achillea millefolium group. I moved these photos there. Please, delete both empty pages. --Franz Xaver 12:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 22
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Clitorisvi.jpg Image:College-view-2-.jpg Image:Colombo.jpg Image:Commons logo candidate.png Image:Convento desde parroquia.jpg Image:Creux du Van above.jpg Image:Creux du Van below.jpg Image:Curroromero.jpg Image:CutterFerry5.JPG Image:CutterFerry6.JPG Image:CutterFerry7.JPG Image:CutterFerry8.JPG Image:DSC00122.jpg Image:DSCF2685.JPG Image:DSCN478a.jpg Image:DSCN7084.jpg Image:Dachauschloss.jpg Image:Daisy wheel.JPG Image:Damascus by night.jpg Image:Daphnia.jpg Image:DeauvillePlanches.jpg Image:Decision tree model.png Image:Dekiel X.jpg Image:Depcopiapo.jpg Image:Desechable.jpg Image:Deutsche-Bank-Frankfurt-am-Main NWW.jpg Image:Didgeridoo-grass.jpg Image:Discipline objet.png Image:Ditim Einladung Juli 2005.jpg Image:Djilas.jpg Image:Docas de Lisboa small.JPG Image:Dorrigo National Park Cedar Falls.jpg Image:Douglas Hyde.jpg Image:Dover MRT.JPG Image:Dr-Laura Schlessinger.jpg Image:Droits adoption.png Image:Droits union.png Image:Dzhusojty Nafi kostum.jpg Image:Dzykkajty Shamil.jpg Image:EDDY号(徳島バス).JPG Image:Eagle.png Image:Ebernburg.jpg Image:Edfu enclosure wall back side.jpg Image:Edfu pronaos.jpg Image:Edificionieve.jpg Image:Eendjes 0000.jpg Image:Eendjes 0004.jpg Image:Eendjes0001.jpg Image:Eendjes0002.jpg Image:Eendjes0003.jpg Image:Eglise mouterhouse.JPG
- Images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 02:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Identified and re-uploaded as Image:Clematis vitalba (2007 07 05).jpg. Taka 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted, Thuresson 02:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is really wierd. The GFDL (see Commons:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License) says
- Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
User:Chamaeleon read the GFDL as part of the Spoken Wikipedia project, but alas, the spoken version is a "verbatim copy" and can't be changed.
Admins: don't delete this file unless a copy has been put at w:Image:GFDL (English).ogg, where it can definitely be kept. dbenbenn | talk 17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: the GFDL is itself not GFDL (strangely enough), and it is non-free by the definition used on the commons (derivatives are not allowed). But having the GFDL on site is a requirement if we want to publish under that license, for instance we host the full text at the german wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License. I belive a spoken version is important for blind people etc, and may even be a requirement with respect to the accessibility laws in place in the US. So I belive that the GFDL, in any form, is acceptable on the commons, as one of the rare exceptions we have to make, so things do not become absurd. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If we host the text, we can certainly host the sound.--Pharos 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a special case. Of course the gfdl can't be gfdl (otherwise I could change it to read "all your gfdl are belong to me"). it needs to be clearly marked as such, and protected. Zeimusu 15:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the GFDL requires that when you publish a modification you use a different title. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason for the GFDL itself to not be GFDL. I suppose the Free Software Foundation simply doesn't want the text of the GFDL to be free. Possibly the FSF wants to discourage people from writing their own copyright licenses. dbenbenn | talk 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty Category, categories Byzantine Empire and Category:Byzantine art will be sufficient. --Magadan ?! 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Sanbec
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From the wording on the image description page this does not appear to be public domain, but rather that use of the image is allowed for news stories connected to the press release it accompanied. Someone with actual knowledge of German please confirm this.--Pharos 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: the usage of the image is only allowed in connection with press releases about the animal. --Warden 07:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The way the image is used is in perfect agreement with the statment when the image was released. This statment was also copy/pasted to the image file when uploaded to wiki. Unfortunatly this statement is in German. However if you understand German you can confirm this.
--TimBarrel 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Copyright tags. Images on Commons have to be free to be used in any context, not just the ways that the owner of the copyright prefers.--Pharos 04:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete neither free to use nor public domain. --Leipnizkeks 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted, Thuresson 15:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nice pictures, but incompatible "non-commercial" licence. --Rosenzweig 19:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redundant copy of Colombia coa.png, uploaded by mistake. --Fibonacci 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, deletion requested by uploader, Thuresson 16:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die von www.stadionwelt.de zugänglich gemachten Text-, Bild- und Tonmaterialien sowie Programme sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung.([3]). Translation: All ours, all rights reserved. This users other uploads should also be reviewed by a speaker of spanish. -guety 23:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Sanbec
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, image made by < 50 year --Shizhao 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think communist china was not member of the international copyright treaties when it was shot, like USSR, so no copyright violation here. Longbow4u 08:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The photoes published under no-copyright-claim and distributed to public same as "the red little book" before the Cinese copyright laws established. Even in China they have no copy rights.--Fanghong 02:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Keep. The "license" under which almost everything was published during the Cultural Revolution might best be described as "copymust". That is: If you do not convert Canned Foods Factory Number Eighteen to the production of w:Mao badges and its labor force does not spend its "free" time hand-copying approved Big Character Posters of the current Line, then it will be repurposed as Reactionary Rightist Re-education Camp Number Forty-Nine in which the primary method of re-education will be ... production of w:Mao badges and the approved recreation will be ... hand-copying approved Big Character Posters of the current Line; you, former brigade commander, will be sent down to the countryside and beaten with bricks until you confess. Copymust. — Xiong熊talk* 05:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion closed. Thuresson 05:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This image is the same as [4].And this site says [5].So we cannot use this image.--Searobin 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is PD under Japanese Copyright Law, so the question here is whether or not the museum can actually impose such a rule. They could charge people for access to the images, but when they've made a PD image available, then as far as I can see there is no valid restriction. Cnyborg 23:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the same problem with Image:Ogata Korin, Wind God2.jpg and Image:Pine Trees.jpg. I'm not a japonese. For me this image is PD. They say this image is not PD , i say this image is PD. It's a very old painting a recent two dimensional reproduction. What we do ? I'm agree to delate it if we are sure that we have no right to use it. I'm oppose to delete it if we don't no. petrus 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that the site says : [6] because lots of 3 dimensional objects can be found on it and this images are not PD. petrus 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the same problem with Image:Ogata Korin, Wind God2.jpg and Image:Pine Trees.jpg. I'm not a japonese. For me this image is PD. They say this image is not PD , i say this image is PD. It's a very old painting a recent two dimensional reproduction. What we do ? I'm agree to delate it if we are sure that we have no right to use it. I'm oppose to delete it if we don't no. petrus 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult for me to write in English,but I try. Now I have just been going to request the reply from Tokyo National Museum whether these images can use or not. Would you wait a little longer?Searobin 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reply came from the Tokyo National Museum. It is a thing that use is not permitted based on ownership that these pictures have not permitted trial based on copyright according to it. In addition, the whole sentence (Japanese) of e-mail was carried here.Thank you.Searobin 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the definition of a work in the Japanese copyright law ? Could a reproduction of a two dimensional work become a new copyrighted work ? Petrus 23:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The reply became slow. I am asking the Tokyo National Museum again. I want to use this image, too. But, this image is not perfect, because this image is only the half of a folding screen. If we use this image, I want to make this image perfect. So, I want to confirm once again whether it is OK. I know that ownership will not occur in a duplicate thing to the judicial precedent of Japan, and I think that copyright may not exist in this image, too. So I have sent e-mail to the Tokyo National Museum . Searobin 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- E-mail came to me from them. It had written on the mail as follows: Supposing they need deletion, they themselves correspond. Although waited for a while, they are not writing. Therefore, now I withdraw this request.Thank you a lot.Searobin 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
F-19 images
[edit]- Image:MONOGRAM F-19 COCKPIT.jpg
- Image:MONOGRAM F-19 FRONT.jpg
- Image:MONOGRAM F-19 MAIN.jpg
- Image:MONOGRAM F-19 RIGHT SIDE.jpg
- Image:MONOGRAM F-19 UPPER RIGHT REAR.jpg
- Image:TESTORS F-18 REAR ANGLE.jpg
- Image:Testors f-19 front.jpg
- Image:TESTORS F-19 LOW FRONT.jpg
- Image:TESTORS F-19 MAIN.jpg
- Image:TESTORS F-19 REAR.jpg
All marked with CopyrightFreeUseProvidedThat, but conditions (do not removed copyright watermark) prohibit derivative works. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Don't think Evert Thielen knows from his luck. That's only a copy of a copyrighted painting. Darkone (¿!) 17:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ACK If it is so, give it down the drain -- Test-tools 07:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I have filled speedy deletion request for all Thielen photos taken from Flickr, can someone just delete them? -- Test-tools 10:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not copyinfo--Shizhao 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Always notify the uploader when you request images for deletion. Thuresson 09:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Star Wars images
[edit]Image:Battle of yavin.jpg, Image:Yavin main hall.jpg, Image:Thermal exhoust.jpg and Image:Death star.jpg. Obvious copyright violations. -guety 20:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My fault, typed in the wrong number when I uploaded. Image:BletchleyPark Hut4 01.JPG has the correct name, please delete the wrongly named one before someone gets a chance to use it. Cnyborg 23:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. In case of mistakes like this, you can tag the image for speedy deletion, like this: {{Deletebecause|wrong name, re-uploaded as [[:Image:XYZ]]}}. But please do this only if you notce the problem quickly, so you are sure that it is not used anywhere. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, thanks. Cnyborg 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by Duesentrieb
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better version of the flag available: Image:Flag of La Rioja province in Argentina.gif and the image is not used any more. --ALE! 10:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Subcategory of Category:Buenos Aires. In my opinion a subcategory of Buenos Aires besides of the maps category does not make sense. --ALE! 11:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Buenos Aires is a state in Argentina. Keeping this isn't stranger than different cities in Brandenburg having their own subcategory. Thuresson 09:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Puerto Madero is not even an official name of a Buenos Aires suburb. And Buenos Aires is not a state in this case but a city. Subcategories for cities are not very senseful. --ALE! 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All paintings by Marcel Duchamp
[edit]The PD-Art tag used is simply wrong (the works will become PD on 1 January 2039!). PD-US could be considered for American artists for works published before 1923, but for this French artist working in France, I think these are just all copyright violations. --AndreasPraefcke 13:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- At times he lived in the U.S. and became a U.S. citizen in 1950-something. Of these images only a few were made in the U.S. Sparkit 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 23
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 14:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Eglise philippsbourg.jpg Image:Ego.JPG Image:Ekh bleibt faust.jpg Image:Ekh-fassade.jpg Image:El Capitan, Yosemite NP.jpg Image:El Estadio Cuauhtémoc.jpg Image:El monte.gif Image:Elarropiero.jpg Image:Elevador Sta Justa1.jpg Image:Elevador Sta Justa2.jpg Image:Elian cake.PNG Image:Elmonte1.jpg Image:Elmonte2.jpg Image:Elmonte3.jpg Image:Elmonte4.jpg Image:Elmonte5.jpg Image:Elämätön.JPG Image:Energie solaire.jpg Image:Erected1.JPG Image:Ericbana.jpg Image:ErnstRoehm60.jpg Image:Esbjergfb.gif Image:Escudo Marcos Juárez.jpg Image:Escudo Marcos Juárez2.jpg Image:Escudo Real.gif Image:Escudo de Barranquilla.jpg Image:Escudo de Barranquilla.png Image:Escudo de barranquilla.gif Image:Escudo de armas de SM el Rey.jpg Image:Escudo real union irun.gif Image:Escudo sdeibar.jpg Image:Escudo tricolor.jpg Image:Escudo7.png Image:EscudoACG.jpg Image:EscudoBloo.gif Image:EscudoGOIANIA-ECpng.png Image:EscudoVilaNova.gif Image:Escudoarmasch.jpg Image:Estadio Anoeta.jpg Image:Estadio Juan Domingo Peron - Panoramica.jpg Image:Estadiomunicipalbraga.jpg Image:Estudiantes.jpg Image:Euler headstone.jpg Image:Example of blue line.jpg Image:Exocet MM40.jpg Image:F212 Presse 100.png Image:F212 Presse 75.png Image:F40.jpg Image:F40red.jpg Image:FCSTATL2.GIF Image:Farah.jpg
- Image:Exocet MM40.jpg the picture is probably from elsewhere but it seems to me that it is a rezised and grey coloured version of [7]. -> delete. --BLueFiSH ?! 23:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 09:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The name of this page is wrong, the town is called Orta San Giulio and is located on a lake called Lago d'Orta, in the lake there is an island called Isola di San Giulio. So my proposal is to have three pages:
and to delete this one. :-) --Civvi 18:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok for me; the intention was to create a page related to Orta San Giulio, so if possible we can just move this page to the one with the right name.—Mac9 08:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason for delete: It already exists (Image:View of Honiara.jpg) --KRATK 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 04:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 24
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 04:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Farocabopalos.jpg
Image:Fatih sultan bellini tablosu.jpg
Image:Fatih turbesi.jpg
Image:Fatima 13m2003 religious articles.jpg
Image:Fatima 13m2003.jpg
Image:Fbpanel.png
Image:FederalElise.jpg
Image:Federated States of Micronesia seal.png
Image:Ferhadija.jpg
Image:Ferrari fxx 02 .jpg
Image:Ferrari fxx.jpg
Image:Festival-landru.jpg
Image:Festival.jpg
Image:Fiakergulasch.jpg
Image:Fishingboat 300.jpg
Image:Flacid1.JPG
Image:Flake.jpg
Image:Fleurinconnue Laurenti 07.JPG
Image:Fleurinconnue Laurenti 08.JPG
Image:Fleurinconnue Laurenti 09.JPG
Image:Flora Paul 07.jpg
Image:Flower1.JPG
Image:Fotokaki1.jpg
Image:Fr-Joyeux Noël et bonne année2.ogg
Image:Franz Jägerstätter.jpg
Image:Frederick Richard Penn Curzon, 7th Earl Howe.jpg
Image:Freebsd.png
Image:Freudenberg-LouisJulius c1917 01.jpg
Image:Fruitbeer.JPG (has been added)
Image:Friedframe.jpg
Image:Fuente.jpg
Image:Gahanananda.jpg
Image:Galata kulesi istanbul.jpg
Image:Garlando maracana.jpg
Image:Gastonall.png
Image:Gebouw met lamp.jpg
Image:Gebouw met mini pagodetorentje.jpg
Image:Gebouw met pagodedaken.jpg
Image:Gebouwen met pagodedaken.jpg
Image:Gebouwen minder.jpg
Image:Geneva Saleve.jpg
Image:Gentoo-logo-small.png
Image:Georges-Pierre Tonnelier.gif
Image:Girl In Field.jpg
Image:Gjakova war destruction.jpg
Image:Gamecube.jpg
Image:Godlo UR.gif
Image:Golden Lion.jpg
Image:Golfo papagayo1.jpg
Image:Goodie.jpg
Image:GordonsBay.JPG
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 15:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:F40tec.jpeg --Paddy 11:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page clearly shows where the poster got image from. 24.185.19.24 01:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fatima in Portugal? Thuresson
These two pictures (Image:Festival.jpg and Image:Festival-landru.jpg) are my own creation and work, not published heretofore and are owned by me. They are placed here on the site in good faith into the Wikimedia and are without copyright violation(s) or fraud, I created the work(s)in question here, is it okay that i posted them here for you all to see?.---(Cathytreks)1:10:09, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
- Please add this information to these images + Copyright information + Copyright TAG, see Commons:Copyright tags --Denniss 22:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiCommons do not allow images published under the fair use provision, see Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons. Thuresson 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These two images were artisticly created image(s) of an old television program. They were created by hand by me,and it is believed that such artistic creations may be exhibited on Wikicommons under the public domain provision of United States copyright law. They are my own creation and work, not published heretofore and are owned by me. They are placed here on the site in good faith into the Wikimedia and are without copyright violation(s) or fraud, I created the work(s)in question here. User:Cathytreks|Cathytreks]] 00:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC))
- You claim that you have made a collage of screenshots from an episode of Star Trek. These episodes are far from unpublished and although they are old, they are very much protected by US copyright law. Thuresson 08:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Source: these works of creative art are from my own collection of dvd screengrabs, that I paid for with my own money, I am not claiming special copyright status on my works of art here, and am freely distributing them in the public domain as the GENUINE works of art that they are! They are mine to freely give out and are not protected by any US copyright law and I'll thank you to realise that simple fact. (Cathytreks 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The artwork itself is not copyrighted if you release it under a free license, that's right. But the source material (TV/DVD) you used for your artwork is copyrighted so your work is not free and therefore unusable on the commons wikipedia. Please upload it to the english wikipedia under the fair use option. --Denniss 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Denniss and Thuresson, I appreciate your true kindness towards a newbie like me, at least you dealt with me in a nice way regarding my dilemia over these images, I appreciate it alot., go ahead now...do your duty Thuresson, I guess I now realise that "you cant fight city hall" as they say? lol, anyway...best wishes, Shalom (Cathytreks 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete it, because nothing link to this template now.--Simon Shek 08:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Simon Shek 08:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence for PD, probably copyvio --Leipnizkeks 11:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the image from the French wikipedia, taking this comment at face value:
- Cette image fait partie du domaine public, soit par ce que son auteur a renoncé à ses droits (copyright), soit parce que ses droits ont expiré. Elle est donc librement diffusable et/ou modifiable, mais ne peut faire l'objet de nouveaux droits d'auteurs
- It was uploaded there by fr:Utilisateur:Sebmoi. Unfortunately, his last edit is more than a year ago, so contacting him may be hard. Gpvos 14:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All photos need a source who can verify the copyright if this is requested. Without one, this photo should be deleted. Thuresson 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-priere.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-repas-super-team.jpg These images look like self-taken images, all labeled as PD. It seems he (or she) was really there. --Denniss 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter two indeed do, but fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg is a bit vague. Could be scanned or photographed from some bit of publicity. On the other hand, it could just be because of some lossy JPEG postprocessing. Gpvos 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-priere.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-repas-super-team.jpg These images look like self-taken images, all labeled as PD. It seems he (or she) was really there. --Denniss 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All photos need a source who can verify the copyright if this is requested. Without one, this photo should be deleted. Thuresson 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that this photo is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0-de is not at all convincing. The source was given only very roughly by the uploader as http://www.tiermotive.de/ . I was successful and found the original photo there (and changed the source link accordingly). There is no indication of any license with the photo. However in Impressum] it is said that contents of this website are copyrighted. It is allowed to use the photos privatly or for non-commercial teaching purposes. So uploading it in commons seems to be copyvio.
This images is only an example from the uploads of User:Jonathan Hornung. Probably most of the photos he uploaded have the same license problems. --Franz Xaver 01:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, wanted to check his uploads myself. -guety 01:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, wait with deletion until end of August. According to his talk page on de.wikipedia, Jonathan Hornung is on holiday until Aug 27th. He should have a possiblity to give a statement. --Franz Xaver 14:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Harebell
[edit]Please delete. Wrong name not Harebell but Willow bellflower. Kpjas 10:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Harebell 160605 1 kpjas.jpg
- Image:Harebell 160605 2 kpjas.jpg
- Image:Harebell 160605 3 kpjas.jpg
- Please, do not delete before it has been uploaded with a proper name. --Franz Xaver 15:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No sign of replacement photos. Images kept. Thuresson 22:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, I can't speak English. This image is uploaded by me. Gnsin is going to update it so please delete it.--Syohei Arai(talk) 13:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Gnsin has requested this deletion request from Mr. Araisyohei.It is glad if it is coped with instancy, since the template of deletion is also used for the picture file instancy.Gnsin 13:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to update the photo simply upload a photo with the same name. No need to delete the old version (or the categories, source info and name of photographer). Thuresson 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the file name was unsuitable, it uploaded to Image:Expo 2005 Aichi Japan in Nagakute 01.jpg.Please understand.Gnsin
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture of Marco Denevi seems to be taken from http://sololiteratura.com/den/denmiscelanea.htm. Because I don't speak spanish, I can't tell the grade of "freeness" of the site but to me it looks more copyrighted. If free, at least the license tag is missing. --Warden 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No licensing info whatsoever is to be found in the page; author claims it is not for profit, but nothing else. I'll be trying to contact him about the picture and data. Taragüí @ 10:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, no license. Thuresson 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Creative Commons "some rights reserved" logo. It is tagged as {{Cc-by-2.5}}, but that appears to be just wishful thinking. Creativecommons.org specifies
- Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The "noted" link indicates that the "some rights" logo is licensed only
- "on the condition that licensee use the mark solely to point to a Creative Commons license or Commons deed on the Creative Commons server or otherwise uses it to describe the Creative Commons license that applies to a particular work; and provided that, to the extent the licensee is using the mark in an online environment, licensee does not alter or remove the hyperlink embedded in such logo as made available on Creative Commons webpage. Creative Commons retains full, unfettered, and sole discretion to revoke this trademark license for any reason whatsoever or for no specified reason."
That is pretty non-free.
I forsee people voting "keep" on this image. I think it's important for the content on the Commons to be as free as possible; we shouldn't have non-free content unless there's a very good reason. In this case, it should be easy enough to replace the logo in copyright tags with some free user-made logo. Graphic artists, get to work!
(Note that the same issue applies to other Creative Commons logos here. I've only listed this one as a test case.) dbenbenn | talk 18:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point there. I believe the best solution would be if somebody would contribute an alternative logo that WikiCommons can use instead. Thuresson 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made some logo's. See User:WebBoy/Creative Commons. WebBoy 12:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed all instances of Image:Somerights.png and Image:Somerights20.png that I could find to Image:CC SomeRightsReserved.png. For technical reasons, the image should be kept but with a notice that its use has been deprecated. Thuresson 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The time spent making an ugly red notice totally baffles me =____=". It breaks many user pages (including mine) on English Wikipedia as it depends on a template that cannot be changed (without admin priveleges anyway). This is the internet - why not just simply copy that image over here??? That's what I just did, by the way. So you get the best of both worlds - a free version of the creative commons image, without breaking everybody elses' pages. --Mintchocicecream 17:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WebBoy! Other Creative Commons images that are non-free include
I suggest the easiest thing to do for these is to simply upload your new "CC SA.png" over cc-sa.png, "CC BY.png" over cc-by.png, etc, then delete the old non-free versions. Also, I think the colors are a bit garish. Could we just make them black and white? dbenbenn | talk 14:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that with . The non-free 2004 revision of that image needs to be deleted. Shall I go ahead with the others? dbenbenn | talk 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The new images are not language-independent. -- 3247 12:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We still also have to purge the character sequence "c-r-e-a-t-i-v-e-space-c-o-m-m-o-n-s" because that string ist trademarked, too. (The same is also true for any other character sequence that is a trademark, servicemark, the name of a natural person, the name of a en:legal entity (including countries and municipialities), etc.) -- 3247 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Purge from where? Note that although the media files hosted here can't involve fair use, the text we write has all the usual fair use rights. So I'm certainly allowed to refer to the Creative Commons by name, just as I'm allowed to mention that I don't drink Coca-Cola. dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether we have fair use rights but whether we can create free content if we use them. The character sequence "Creative Commons" can't be used freely because it is trademarked. (Of course, this is not a problem for the GFDL because that license only pertains to copyright.)
- It does not make sense to disallow trademarked images but to allow trademarked text strings, images which contain names, coat of arms, insignia (which are not trademarks but still protected as identifiers) or nazi symbols (the use of which can be a criminal offence)
- It's easy to work around that, too: If the images are stored on the server as parts, they are not trademarked because they parts are not recognizable but they can be re-assembled with HTML/CSS (which is text, so only the trademark-agnostic GFDL applies). -- 3247 11:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Purge from where? Note that although the media files hosted here can't involve fair use, the text we write has all the usual fair use rights. So I'm certainly allowed to refer to the Creative Commons by name, just as I'm allowed to mention that I don't drink Coca-Cola. dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than strange. Of course I strongly advise to stay with the official cc-logos and I'm against the use of selfmade logos. There are good reasons for using some pictures - like copyrighted Wikimedia pictures - or license logos. The logos and licenses of the cc are created with re-recognition in mind. Everyone who ever got in touch with this, see with one solely view of one of the logos, what the license says. At last: should we delete the GFDL from all projects, because it isn't released under a free license? --Avatar 01:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this: I've made Template:Freelicense (copied above) on the model of Template:Copyright by Wikimedia for all of the material related to free licenses. It is necessary to have this stuff to distribute material under free licenses, even if the logos and texts are not themselves free.--Pharos 01:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not necessary to use "this file" to illustrate free-license content, there is a freely licensed alternative. No need for yet another template. Thuresson 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is necessary to have this stuff to distribute material under free licenses". No, it isn't. The only non-free content we're required to have is the GFDL. Anyway, note that the Creative Commons requires that if you display their logo, you "use the mark to point to the Creative Commons homepage, http://creativecommons.org, and only to the Creative Commons homepage." We don't do that: when we display Somerights20.png, it is a link to Image:Somerights20.png, not creativecommons.org. dbenbenn | talk 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be legally necessary but it's practically quite important to use the standard, recognized logos. We explicitly link to the Creative Commons page in every instance, rather than hiding the link in the image, which I think exceeds the requirements. I seriously doubt that the Creative Commons organization objects to this.--Pharos 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky situation. At first look, the practical argument is compelling. The images were made specifically for use in licensing templates like ours, and that's what we use them for. Even if there are minor technicalities with the way we use the images, I'm sure CC would be willing to grant us a special license to use them in exactly this fashion. After all, we're on very good terms.
However, keep in mind than an image on the Commons is instantly available to all other Wikimedia projects. This, too, can be beneficial if they use them only for the illustration of licenses as required. However, see this revision of the English Wikipedia article on Creative Commons as an example that this is not the case. The licenses are used to illustrate articles as well, and for Wikimedia projects without fair use allowances, this may violate their policies. Worse, they have no way (other than reverting) of stopping the images from being used. The situation is not as problematic with the Wikimedia logos, whose use within Wikimedia is uncontroversial.
Again, perhaps a technicality -- how likely is it that Creative Commons would go after us for using their logo in our articles? However, the expectation that Wikimedia Commons provides free content should not be disappointed without good reason. There is also the risk of a slippery slope: Do we make an exception because CC is within our ideological sphere? If so, what other logos could fall under similar conditions?
I am not firmly decided either way. I think the idea of providing free logos without any restriction is cute and potentially beneficial to people who want to use Creative Commons licenses for purposes the Creative Commons project does not approve of (e.g. pornography). However, if we create such alternatives, they should be public domain, not GFDL. Licensing a logo under the incredibly complex and highly problematic GFDL, as is currently the case with Image:CC SA.png et al., is hardly an improvement. Or would you want to attach a copy of the GFDL to your Creative Commons licensed document?
The alternative is to make it absolutely clear in the license description that any use other than in copyright templates is not "free". The above template, with somewhat stronger language, could perhaps do the trick. However, I'm not sure whether this will be enforced.
Lastly, there's always the option of sofware solutions, but other than enabling hotlinking of images on the Commons and using this to refer to the license buttons, I don't see any which could be very quickly implemented.
Absent new arguments, my tentative vote is to replace the buttons with free logos, provided those are released into the public domain.--Eloquence 10:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WebBoy multilicensed his logos, GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5-nl. So it isn't necessary to "attach a copy of the GFDL to your Creative Commons licensed document". dbenbenn | talk 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not very knowledgable on copyright law, and hardly ever wander onto the WikiCommons. But I saw that a CC license had a deletion request on, and popped over. I would say, a better option is to just ask Creative Commons if they will give Wiki special permission to not have it link directly to their server. Using the original CC images means a consistency throughout the web, and easy recognisability. Is there anything wrong about the little Share Alike and By Attribution symbols that we have to replace them with a low res "free version"? What's the point in having a CC License symbol also licensed under the GFDL? isn't the CC licesne enough? I said before, I'm not knowledgable on copyright laws, so some of my points may not be totally valid. But I oppose the replacement of original images with "free" ones. - 83.151.204.235 23:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pics from User:TinMan
[edit]- Image:E004108.jpg, Image:EI00186.jpg Source: MyComp, which is surley not the copyright holder.
- Image:Kaneva 003b.jpg Lots of copyrighted stuff inside. -guety 01:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 15:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry.name is wrong.Correct name is Image:JozenjiDori2005-8.jpg.--Los688 15:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 15:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not think the normal namespace should be used for categories of users. A gallery should do. I am not sure how others see that, so I'd welcome any comments. --AndreasPraefcke 17:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I submitted the question of how to manage my hundreds of photos to Village Pump and was specifically directed to create categories as other users had done. I don't see how it creates any negative impact to add a category to a photo for myself as the photographer instead of laboriously creating user subpages for galleries so I can remember what I've uploaded. We should categorize all photos by photographer if possible. --Tysto 14:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this and all subcategories of Category:User galleries. dbenbenn | talk 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This has remained unchanged and unchallenged for three weeks. I've removed the delete request from the pages in question. --Tysto 17:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map claims to show the distribution of Arctocephalus pusillus but it is completely wrong. Please delete so Wikipedias do not adopt this map. I already provided a correct map on Arctocephalus pusillus. -- Baldhur 18:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used any more. Better version of the flag available by the name Image:Flag of Corrientes province in Argentina.gif --ALE! 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used any more. Better version of the flag available by the name Image:Flag of Santa Fe province in Argentina.gif --ALE! 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a better version and I tell you why: yours has a wrong ratio (the real flag that flies in Santa Fe aren't that wide).--Jfa 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The page http://www.angelfire.com/realm/jolle/argentina/santafe.htm by Jaume Olle states that the ration 1:2. --ALE! 14:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used any more. Duplicate of Image:Flag of Salta province in Argentina.gif --ALE! 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used any more. Better version of the flag available by the name Image:Flag of Santa Cruz province in Argentina.gif --ALE! 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: Category is POV, and advertises a web site. I don't see how it can be fixed. -- Hike395 22:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. "most beautiful" is for sure a ridiculous name, but it is the exact name of this club. I could write : "members of the most beautiful bays in the world club" (starts to be long to write no ?. You can call it a company (it is not), but what about [:Category:Coca-Cola]], Category:Microsoft, Category:Fast food and all the w:Category:Companies of the United States ? Should they be deleted ? I didn't create the category for advertizing but because there is an page in the french wikipedia : fr:Club des plus belles baies du monde... It was nice to put a "commons" link.
Jean-no
- Delete—It's just advertising for a website. The examples above are major international companies that have broad appeal. --Tysto 03:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Would you accept a categorization like say : country member of the UN ? If yes, well this international organization (most beautiful bays in the world club) is of the same kind : some bays of the world are members, they have to respect certain conditions. The UN countries do same (and all the countries of the world are not member of the UN). Of course the name of the "club" is ridiculous by itself and doesn't really give what it says : there is the (cute but not more) bay of Quiberon but not the Venezia Laguna, Rio, Chesapeake and many of the most famous bays in the world. But the club exists and it can be interesting to note wich countries are members of it. Actually I am not really interested in that subject but I don't get why it should be deleted. Jean-no
- Delete - this is commons, and the category does nothing to help me find the media files I'm looking for. Articles in WP, sure, but not categories in commons. Stan Shebs 13:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- actualy the category is a help for finding stuff. Anyways, delete it, I don't care. Don't understand, but don't care. Sorry for disturbing, won't come again. Jean-no
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: I (En rouge) had uploaded this image (the source is the nl wikipedia: nl:Afbeelding:Leefgebied_zeeluipaard.JPG in article nl:Zeeluipaard). This image is wrong ; Baldhur has uploaded a new image Image:Hydrurga leptonyx distribution.png which must replace the previous one (e.g. Image:Hydrurga leptonyx dis.jpg redirects to Image:Hydrurga leptonyx distribution.png). --En rouge 02:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
HQFL football logos have been discussed here before. This template created yesterday omits the HQFL disclaimer [8] which includes:
All logos are trademarks of their respective owners, and are offered for non-commercial use and as a convenience for their lawful use only, with proper permission from the copyright or trademark holders. Downloading material from this website does NOT give you authorization or permission to use the copyrighted logos without the specific consent of the copyright or trademark holder. Before you use, reproduce or distribute in any manner any logo found on this website, you must first receive the express permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark of that logo. Failure to obtain such permission is a violation under international law.
I propose that the template and accompanying football logos are deleted. Thuresson 03:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Under the laws here in the United States, using those logo images would still fall under "fair use". Zzyzx11 11:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the logos. I've made the template redirect to Template:Noncommercial. Let's keep it, to discourage the same thing happening again. dbenbenn | talk 13:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with debenbenn: delete the logos, but keep the template as a redir to noncommercial. We have had this discussion before: the main point is that HQFL does not have rights to the original designs, and thus has no say in licensing them anyway. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted images. ed g2s • talk 19:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is the probably registered logo of a movement for the diffussion of the Leonese language. There is no reason to suppose it has been released under the GFDL (the movement's site makes no mention of licensing whatsoever). Taragüí @ 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This picture was in my own possesion and this never was registrated, in other the association actually is not operationally and I was a member-founder so I can concede the public use while the association forbid the use. Sorry for my english. --Henrique 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong filename (typo) re-uploaded on Image:Siegen Museum fuer Gegenwartskunst.jpg --Caterham 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On request of User:San Jose (he contacted me in the german wikipedia) this picture can be deleted. There is a second version under image:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map de.png
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On request of User:San Jose (he contacted me in the german wikipedia) this picture can be deleted. There is a second version under image:Second world war europe 1935-1939 map de.png
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a redundant smaller image to Image:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg. Zzyzx11 20:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's used on the Ronald Reagan articles at DE, SV, NL, PL, ES, IT, NO, FI, and HU. It might be good to crop the larger version to the same frame as the smaller version and overwrite, though. dbenbenn | talk 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is possible to change links in wikipedias. I would not dare to crop a president. --Franz Xaver 17:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The name "Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg" is much better than "Reagan.jpg". DE, SV, NL, PL, ES, IT, NO, FI are already fixed. --MartinHagberg 08:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by Image:Limenitis populi-01.jpg & Image:Limenitis populi-02.jpg -Svdmolen 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photograph of copyrighted material (the Smurfs, Scrooge McDuck). It can't be licensed under the GDFL and is not "free" -- as much "creativity" might be in the arrangement, it is still a hugely derivative work, and couldn't be relicensed without the explicit permission of the copyright holders. (The Smurfs were created in the 1950s, so they are certainly still under copyright) --Fastfission 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because of the use of copyrighted content, this is not a free image.--Pharos 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm. I'm inclined to think this is not copyvio. The work is somewhat derivative, but I don't think a claim of fair use needs be made.
- The world is full of copyrighted things. Can I take a photo of the beer aisle at the supermarket? Every label is copyrighted, but the photo is an original work and mine alone. Note that if I take a tight shot, every inch of that frame is one beer label or another; the entire content, individually, is copyrighted by Somebody else -- but the photo is still all mine.
- Because the comics in this photo are themselves 2D artwork, this photo does sail closer to the wind. However:
- Three distinct, unrelated comics are depicted and none in sufficient fraction of the whole to reveal the plot, or even the local intent of the series of panels partially shown. Indeed, only one panel is shown in its entirety. All the works depicted are rotated significantly from their normal display angle. The presentation does resemble a 2D copy of 2D works, but if you look closely, you can see definite 3D effects, noticeably in the gutter area at the lower-left. Also, the entire image is blurry and indistinct, so that it presents itself less as a transparent copy and much more like a snapshot of what happened to be on the photographer's coffee table.
- (IANAL!) I judge that if fair use were asserted, it would be extremely "hard" -- that is, independent of end use; the "fairness" inherent in the creation of derivative work; thus, entirely acceptable in commercial publication. However, I think good grounds could be asserted for a purely original work which simply happens to include this, that, and the other thing -- which happen to be copyrighted works.
- That said, I think the photo is extremely weak -- of very poor technical quality. I would like to see a larger number of smaller views of different comics, a greater sense of 3D pileup, and of course, the thing in focus, with no muddy colors. (Oh, and Death to Smurfs! ©)
- Well, a slight angle, 3D effects, etc. only affect quality, not copyright. A bad reproduction is still a reproduction. Only if you take a photo of a larger scene, the individual copyrighted elements of which are "accessory", then the image can be free. For example, a photo of a bookshop is certainly okay, even if you can see the copyrighted covers of books. I'd put the borderline somewhere between 5% and 10% for each individual element; the collage here is clearly above. -- 3247 23:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON -- redundant Errabee 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ARGUMENTS -- re-uploaded by myself as Image:Mir training module.jpg Errabee 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
More questionable uploads by User:¡0-8-15!. Uploader claims that these are public domain but at the same time copyright by Aruban central bank. Also, you are not allowed to counterfeit, does that make them "non-commercial"? Thuresson 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bn010b 01.jpg Image:Bn010f 01.jpg Image:Bn025b 01.jpg Image:Bn025f 01.jpg Image:Bn050b 01.jpg Image:Bn050f 01.jpg Image:Bn100b 01.jpg Image:Bn100f 01.jpg Image:Bn500f 01.jpg
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems, this is a photograph of copyrighted material. --Remi 19:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Painting by Edvard Munch, published in Norway. Munch died 1944, so his paintings will not be PD until 2015. Other images by him have been deleted for this reason before. Cnyborg 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 25
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 22:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GoreBush.jpg Image:Grace holloway.jpg Image:Grancua.gif Image:Grange d'Ouri et aiguilles Ansabere Bearn France.jpg Image:Granges de Campbieilh Bearn France.jpg Image:Granges de Lescun Bearn France.jpg Image:Great Barrier Island Haratonga Bay.jpg Image:GrummanF-14.senork.jpg Image:Grote close up toegangspoort.jpg Image:Guatemala3.jpg Image:Guy Fawkes.gif Image:HAHA(1).jpg Image:Hailfire.jpg Image:Halle.JPG Image:Hamster.jpg Image:HanaYoriDango.jpg Image:Hans Massaquoi with Head.jpg Image:HansStaden-film.jpg Image:HariHareshwar.jpg Image:Harishchandragad-1.jpg Image:Harishchandragad-2.jpg Image:Harishchandragad-3.jpg Image:Harishchandragad-4.jpg Image:Harishchandragad-5.jpg Image:Hatp.gif Image:Her-huan mountain-1.jpg Image:Her-huan mountain-2.jpg Image:Her-huan mountain-3.jpg Image:Herve le blouch.jpg Image:Hidroavión.jpg Image:Hikari.jpg Image:Hilando hamacas en Masaya.JPG Image:Hitler in Color.jpg Image:Hk stjohnscathedral.jpg Image:Honda S2000 engine.jpg Image:Honda S2000 front hardtop.jpg Image:Honda S2000 front.jpg Image:Honda S2000 rear.jpg Image:Honda S2000 side.jpg Image:Honda S2000 top hardtop.jpg Image:Hostile0.jpg Image:Hugoweaving.jpg Image:Humanidades.jpg Image:IM000304.JPG Image:IMG 0082.jpg Image:INDICARE.jpg Image:ISM2.gif Image:Idk4gp.gif Image:Ikeda.jpg Image:Image002.jpg Image:Image012.jpg
Keep this image, it has PD-art license- Delete, I take this image from en.wikipedia, but here there aren't informations about the author and when was painted --Dani 7C3 09:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 21:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename uploaded, now reuploaded as Image:Curtin The Basement.jpg --Shinjiman 09:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 11:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced with a better image which is Image:Morning glory.jpg
Chilepine 13:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the new photo is better, but the other one is not bad. Why not keep both? Cheers --Franz Xaver 17:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, keep both (but perhaps the last should be uploaded under the latin name). Cnyborg 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is no longer used. I uploaded a better version: image:Orangerie in Darmstadt-Bessungen (Germany).jpg. I redirected all international uses (3 of them, dutch, norwegian, japanese wikipedia). Stef74 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 11:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has been uploaded with a wrong filename. The right one is Image:Aachen_Cathedral_from_north.jpg -- Martin Möller 17:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 11:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some uploads of User:Szalas
[edit]User:Szalas tagged all of these as GFDL, but it's prettly clear he didn't make any of them:
dbenbenn | talk 19:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, I have asked Szalas to clarify but with no reply, Thuresson 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source: www.trainlgb.com, picture is free for private use\ Marc Mongenet 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct; but your response is not. The webmaster/photographer invites contacts for commercial use. Suggest you -- you, since you raised the issue -- send him an email and ask what kind of free licensing he might be willing to attach to one or more of his images. I think you'll find he'll be tickled pink to be thought so "notable". — Xiong熊talk* 06:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
X-Men, Batman and others
[edit]Photos of various issues of Superman, Batman and X-Men. Uploader claims copyright to these works and appear to mean that these are 3D objects, not 2D and hence can be uploaded to WikiCommons. This is still a hugely derivative work if I ever saw one and can not be licensed under a free license. Delete. Thuresson 08:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vertigo08.jpg Image:Crossover01.jpg Image:Hagar horrível.jpg Image:Batman anual 01.jpg Image:Mangas-variados.jpg Image:Fabulososx-men1.jpg Image:X-men - DAHM.jpg
- Oppose. There is no copy since this is a original artwork and not a direct copy. At least on my country (Brazil) pictures of copyrighted products appears all the time on the media without the needance of the product's author be notified or paid. Sorry if this text sounds weird, I have just few notions of English language.Marc Sena 03:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An english translation of the Brazilian copyright law from 1998 is available here. Chapter III Article 29 claims that: The express prior authorization of the author of any literary, artistic or scientific work shall be required for any kind of use, such as: I: complete or partial reproduction.... Thuresson
- Delete. The main subject of the images are the 2D cover images, but even if the 3D object angle should hold water, I think Thuresson is right. Brazilian media's alleged practice of ignoring copyright laws shouldn't be a guideline for Commons. Cnyborg 08:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Brazilian media doesnt ignore the copyright, because a original photo in 3D is not a "complete or partial reproduction", instead it is a original artwork itself. Photographed from some distance a comicbook is just another 3d object, like this one. The Commons had accepted a comicbook photo previously (see here) --Marc Sena 03:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. I would not delete the image Mangas-variados.jpg, because the 3D angle is very clear in it. Concerning the other images, it is true that they seem more like fac-simile, and the 3D idea one can find in Mangas-variados.jpg is absent in them. Please split the section in order people can vote to each image separately. Thanks, --Mschlindwein 02:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All the images are surrounded for a contrast background with a color (white) different than the comic's color. They also have some degree of angle in comparison with the surface (tough little).Marc Sena 05:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: fotographs of 3D objects are not simple reproductions, the photographer generally has rights to the results. But this does not mean that the creator of the object does not have rights to the resulting photograph too! I.e. pictures of copyrighted sculpures, fugures, etc are not free without the permission of the creator. Note that such images may be used (depending on context and local jurisdiction) under some form of the fair use clause by news media, etc - but fair use is not applicable on the commons (we are a media database, there is no editorial context), and is explicitely declared to be non-acceptable by the Commons:Licensing policy. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from Commons:Licensing:
- "For a picture of artwork (also book covers and the like), it is similar:
- The creator of the original artwork has rights to the results.
- The photographer has rights to the image."
- Delete -- 3247 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But, on this case, was the entreprise that made this object notified about the upload of this photo, or even Disney? Where information about this can be found?Marc Sena 03:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems kind of ridiculous. Every consumer object was made by someone else. Why should Disney have any greater right to a photo of a Donald Duck figurine or Marvel to a photo of an X-Men comic book than Craftsman has to a photo of one of its hammers or Mazda has to a photo of one of its cars? They have a right to the use and licensing of the characters and the names but Wikimedia is not responsible for the misuse of photos on Commons. If I pull a character or logo out of a Commons photo and put it on my products, I'm the one who is guilty of violating the logo owner's rights, not Wikimedia for making it possible. --Tysto 16:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- "There are other images which violate copyright or registered designs" is not a valid excuse. Making hammers is typically not a creative jobs, so they are not protected by copyright (and not registerable as designs). Mazda cars might be protected as a registered designs (US: design patents). -- 3247 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The seven days are gone. Can I delete the tags? --Marc Sena 04:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure keep. Who are the crazy to use these images (in 3D and low resolution) for sale? --FML hi 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clear copyvio problems. They would be derivative no matter how you slice it, whether or not the slight angle and blurriness woudl give you some slight claims to "originality". --Fastfission 13:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo. The Marvel Comics is not a Photo Gallery. So, how could I have copied one of its works? The situation of the Donald Ducks's Photo wasn't explaned. Was the Disney Inc. informed about the picture? I could not see any "originality" on that. --Marc Sena 03:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Chinese portraits
[edit]The following images violate Chinese law [9](100th article) for protecting rights of people's portraits for noncommercial usage. Commons will delet noncommercial images. [10]
- Image:2005-07-08 Mahjong.JPG
- Image:2005-07-10 chinese chess.JPG
- Image:2005-07-08 street traders.JPG
- Image:Changchun Market 2005.jpg
- Image:Changchun Street Barber 2005.jpg
--Fanghong 00:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean to say "commercial use". You need to link to an English translation of that law for us to make any sense out of it.
- I agree that Image:Changchun Market 2005.jpg infringes the rights of the central subject, assuming he did not provide a model release. He is isolated and central; his face is directed to the camera; and can probably be identified personally, with ease.
- I think all the others are fine, for all the complimentary reasons. All other faces are somewhat averted; individual recognition is questionable; the subject of each is not any one person, or even the group, but an activity. Look back and forth between the first-mentioned and the rest; I think you'll see the difference (IANACL!) — Xiong熊talk* 06:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here with English translation of the law (below Chinese text, Article 100), I think that any identified faces would be regard as "portrait". That confirmed by a lot of legal practice.--Fanghong 08:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think almost every country has similar laws - this photo of an American can not be used in the US to sell soft drinks or ring tones either. I think what is important is that the copyright owner (photographer) does not object to other people using the photo as they like. If WikiCommons had to take into consideration marketing law there would hardly be any photos of people at all. Thuresson 11:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a stupid approach.
- Images kept. Thuresson 22:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I moved all contents from this category to Category:United States National Parks 'cause of (implicit) naming conventions, all other had capital letters (United States National Monument, United States State Parks), so the category with non capital letters is no more used. --Huebi 07:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is not public domain. The copyright on http://www.indiana.edu/~league/copyright.htm says: The United Nations provides the photos contained on this web site, including reproductions of items from its collections, for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. Any other use of the photos [...] without authorization [...] is strictly prohibited.. --Huebi 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--
Wikipedia is non-comercial. --Miguel at 10:05, August 27 2005 (UTC)
- So what? The picture is not public domain, as said in the description of this image. Images stored in Wikimedia must be availabale for everyone, even for commercial use. This picture is not avaliable for commercial use, it is not PD. So it has to be deleted, cause there is no license available in wikimedia which fulfills everything mentioned on the united states copyright page. Please read the licences carefully and you will see that wikimedia is not the right place for this image. --Huebi 13:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All images published in Internet by official institutions are for everybody. In this case the only restriction is that the image is not for commercial use. We can put in the description of the image that the image is not for commercial use. This image is an historical document of great importance. Please, don't delete the image. --Miguel at 16:19, August 27 2005 (UTC)
- The Commons only allows media that can be used for commercial purposes. See Commons:Licensing for more info, and of course delete. dbenbenn | talk 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The League of Nations was an international institution like United Nations now. The documents of the League of Nations are property of the humanity. A million people died in Spain in a war. That image is very important because it shows part of the truth. Juan Negrín was not a criminal. He was a very important politician chosen by all the Spaniards in elections. That image must be well-known by all the people. Copyright in this case is a diplomatic formality. That image is part of the history of Spain and must be well-known by everybody. To erase that image means to despise the life of hundreds of thousands of people. That image also is property of deads. Please, don't delete the image. --Miguel at 08:49, August 28 2005 (UTC)
- It is not a diplomatic formality. And it is not important for keeping the image in wikimedia if the picture is meaningful for history or not (by the way this is just your opinion). If you want to keep the picture in wikimedia, deliver an appropriate license, either PD, a derivate of cc oder GFDL. The picture has none of these right now. So you have to deal with United nations and they have the copyright and they're telling evrybody their license agreement. These are the only relevant point, not your opinion, not if you think the copyright is legal or not. If you think it is not, then clarify this by your own and when a license is available wikimedia insists it, it can be stored here. For now, it cant be. --Huebi 10:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Chilean fair use
[edit]A section of the Chilean copyright law allows for the publication of works without permisson from the copyright owner if the purpose is education, science or review. One user, User:Caglieri, has refered to this when uploading a number of photos. He/she has also tagged the photos with PD. Since WikiCommons do not allow photos published under "fair use" or similar rules, I propose that the images below are deleted. Thuresson 03:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ritzcarlton2005-06-06 012x.jpg Image:Hospitalsanjose2005-05-07 002xx.jpg Image:CiudadsateliteImagen2 030xxxx.jpg Image:CiudadsateliteImagen2 030.jpg Image:CaminomelipillaImagen2 019.jpg Image:Fuerte santalucia2005-07-18 027x.jpg Image:Sendero cerrosantalucia2005-07-18 001x.jpg Image:Estacion central2004-10-06 006.JPG Image:Bellas artes2005-05-30 004.JPG Image:Cerroblanco2005-05-30 014wiki.jpg Image:2005-05-30 009x.jpg Image:Palaciofalabella2005-04-15 009sephia.jpg
- He changed to CopyrightedFreeUse, so I don't think we must continue with this deletion request. --KRATK 04:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, CopyrightedFreeUse is fine, so these images can stay. However, Thuresson is right: the releant part of Chilean copyright law basically amounts to fair use, which is not acceptable on the commons. Images relying on that clause will have to be deleted. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON Copyright - [11]
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown license 26
[edit]The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 02:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ImagenPostal2386.jpg Image:Images.jpeg Image:ImgPrado001g.JPG Image:Imgp1325.jpg Image:Indiaberries.jpg Image:IndustrialTELEVISIONlogo.jpg Image:IndySymbol.gif Image:Instalaciones Zubieta.jpg Image:Int tren.jpg Image:Intérieur chapelle philippsbourg.jpg Image:Intérieur chapelle.jpg Image:Ip phone.jpg Image:Iraqi National Assembly.PNG Image:Irssi.png Image:Ivan Popov.jpg Image:Jakob Nielsen.jpg Image:Jakubtor.jpg Image:Jakubtor2.jpg Image:Jalapeno flower.jpg Image:Jalapeno-fruit.jpg Image:Jalapeno.jpg Image:JamesWatson.jpeg Image:Jamia Mosque, East Ham.jpg Image:Janaganamana.mid Image:Jeans zipper closeup.jpg Image:JegaPRIME Himself.jpg Image:JegaPRIME.jpg Image:Jerusalem Mezquita de la Roca.JPG Image:Jez czerniakowskie north.jpg Image:Jez czerniakowskie south.jpg Image:Jive - 17 Sept 2004 (small).jpg Image:JohannesPaulII.JPG Image:Juanaavanzadora.gif Image:Judo kosei inoue.jpg Image:Jurawiki-Logo.png Image:KPIC00334.JPG Image:KPIC00335.JPG Image:KPIC00337.JPG Image:Kantaoui1.jpg Image:Karakas (Caracas) Cerroavila.gif Image:Kayaks 300.jpg Image:Kevin James.jpg Image:Kiev satellite 2002.jpg Image:Kilt.JPG Image:Kokojty zhgjot narkotiki.jpg Image:Kölsch.jpg Image:LECORBUSIER UA 1.JPG Image:La Biblia PDT.2.jpg Image:LOL.png Image:La Palma-observatory.jpg
Image:Jamia Mosque, East Ham.jpg should be deleted... it is public domain (I took it), however it is a copy of Image:Jamia Masjid, East Ham.jpg which I thought I had put up for deletion. gren 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can delete Image:Iraqi National Assembly.PNG, I created it, but it was never really used. CGorman 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:India Goa Chapora River Sunset Palmtree.jpg sorry that was one of the first i've uploaded to Commons, didn't know about proper license-infos then...added it now, took out deletion warning. --Zerohund 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 01:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Jean-Léon Gérôme 012 Pelt.jpg (done)
[edit]Hi, file Image:Jean-Léon Gérôme 012 Pelt.jpg was misnamed and should be deleted.
Good name for the same upload right after is Image:Jean-Léon Gérôme 016 Pelt.jpg
thanks,
Holycharly 04:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --AndreasPraefcke 21:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Visible thong photos
[edit]Image:Visible Thong 8.jpg, Image:Visible Thong 9.jpg, Image:Visible Thong 10.jpg & Image:Visible Thong 11.jpg, no license BLueFiSH ?! 14:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What is encyclopedic value? I doubt that models were asked for permission. --EugeneZelenko 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The models aren't recognizable, so privacy isn't an issue. The uploader said "own picture" for all of them, and no one asked him to clarify the license. I'll go do that now. On the other hand, the pictures are pretty crappy. dbenbenn | talk 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, i agree to you. i thought that a missing license tag and the very bad quality of the pictures would justify the deletion, but if i you don't think so it's ok to me ;-) --BLueFiSH ?! 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Depending on which country these were taken in and published from, privacy laws might not be the only issue. The voyeuristic nature of the images means that they would be illegal in several countries anyway; there was recently a case here in Norway where a man was charged with taking photos no more revealing than these, and the police made it quite clear that although none of the "models" could be identified, and he hadn't even published the images, he would still be prosecuted. I imagine that we're not the only country to have such a law, and I would like some clarification of where they were taken and published from, and what the local law says about it. Cnyborg 13:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, i agree to you. i thought that a missing license tag and the very bad quality of the pictures would justify the deletion, but if i you don't think so it's ok to me ;-) --BLueFiSH ?! 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cant see a value of these for an encyclopedia, IMHO wikimedia is not a garbage collector for all pictures ever taken. --Huebi 10:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - the subject matter is not meaningful to any Mediwawiki project, and the quality is terrible. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Terrible Quality. Not useful for wikimedia projects. Delete them. --Martinroell 09:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Agree with users before --Patio 06:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The thongs are insufficiently visible. Besides, I don't want to see visible thongs; I want to see invisible thongs and what they don't hide! — Xiong熊talk* 06:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, no license, Thuresson 19:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
They are only for educational or non-profit use, so they aren't free here. They used to be erroneously tagged as public domain images in the English Wikipedia. --Hapsiainen 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New versions is avaible: Image:Kino_Sokół_w_Nowym_Sączu.jpg, Image:Ratusz_w_Nowym_Sączu.jpg --Adziura 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to delete the second image, you uploaded an image showing the same building (using a differen angle of view) but that'S no reason to delete the old one --Denniss 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the first image. Thuresson 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, I mistake the name. The good is Coste and not Costes. Thanks.--Valérie75 20:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Added speedy deletion to this image, please use speedy deletion in case of wrong filenames used --Denniss 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted by User:Paddy
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We don't need a template to explain that "Thanks to the Wikimedia Commons project, this picture is now directly available on any Wikimedia website". That applies to every single image here. dbenbenn | talk 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Template:Directly available, which is the same message, but terser. dbenbenn | talk 22:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - completely pointles. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator, User:Rfl, may be unaware that viewing a Commons image is if it were local to a 'pedia displays a similar message automatically. That message is a very good thing. I agree that, so long as the automatic message displays, these two seem to have no purpose.
- I do now begin to suspect that Rfl is out of step with us here. See this oddity. I'm not sure simple deletion of these two templates is going to address the difficulty. Perhaps we need to engage this user more fully? — Xiong熊talk* 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A devilish face in the smoke rising from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. If it were real it would be great, but of course it's digital fiction, and therefore not useful to any Wikimedia project. dbenbenn | talk 00:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to say keep, but label it clearly as a manipulated image. The devil's face was a widely published urban legend at the time, and it seems useable in that context. Cnyborg 08:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it is manipulated, ther's a lot of WTC pictures in which people see faces - the most well known one is probably this. I also belive that the image could be use to illustrate articles about urban legends, hoaxes, etc.
- But I strongly doubt that the uploader took the foto himself - thus, the licensing is incorrect, the image is not free and we should delete it. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion theres only one which is not manipulated, the one Duesentrieb mentioned. Besides that, i#m in doubt too about the license. --Huebi 09:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is unlikely to be a free license and there is no reason to suspect it is. --Fastfission 18:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, if it's not under a free license, it must be deleted; my comment above only addressed the reason given for the deletion request and not the license. Cnyborg 16:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no notice about the Agreement of publishment of the 2 woman. Because of the "right on the own image", this is committing (german: Es wurde nicht geschrieben, dass die Frauen mit der Veröffendlichung einverstanden waren. Aufgrund des Rechtes am eigenen Bild ist dies zwingend notwendig). --DaB. 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "Not that I know her or anything, but my guess would be she's Austrian." schani Not that this any evidence that he did not ask if he could take a photo. This guy has taken a lot of pictures of unknown people. I doubt he asked if he may publish them. --Paddy 14:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The photo has a license, verifiable source and is probably useful to a Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. But aren't there privacy laws (even in the United States) limiting the publication of pictures of non-famous people? My impression is that, unless she's a celebrity, we would need her permission to publish her photo. dbenbenn | talk 16:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are privacy laws in the US, in Germany (and probably in many other countries) that do not allow the publication of pictures of non-celebrities. It could only be accepted it if they were bystanders when you are taking a picture of something else. It's Wikimedia who is publishing these pictures, so Wikimedia would be the target in a possible lawsuit, as would any newspaper or the like. -Fb78 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will protect Wikimedia from a law suit. If you claim that privacy laws outlaw the publication, please provide a link. Thuresson 17:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be the case in the US, but not in Germany (German wikipedia is the second biggest wikipedia at the time). In Germany, the publication of a person's picture is not allowed without their consent (§22 KUG). Teleproviders are not protected from a lawsuit - just like newspapers and TV stations they can be held responsible for what they publish. Since Wikimedia is providing services in Germany and for a German audience, there's no reason why they can't be sued in Germany.
- Therefore, if French law is a reason to delete images (see above), German law should be regarded equally. It's a general policy on de.wikipedia to delete such images on the grounds of §22 KUG.
- The relevant article is de:Recht am eigenen Bild (in German). According to this article, the publication media (not only the photographer) can be held responsible. In that case, the publication media would be Wikimedia.
- @Thuresson: How exactly is DMCA going to protect wikimedia from a lawsuit in this case? It's not a copyright issue.
- Oh, and I'm sure any Wikimedia project that needs a picture of two young women would prefer one that has the permission of the persons depicted. This picture looks to me like the girls are not aware of being photographed, and I strongly doubt the photographer asked them afterwards whether he could put that picture on the web. --Fb78 12:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the named reason (Recht am eigenen Bild), even when i am very sad when the pic is deleted --BLueFiSH ?! 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep:
- The image has proper creative commons license and does not hurt anyones rights.
- As formerly discussed by the community, We have to keep the law of Florida and the law of the country in which the particular picture was taken. That is in this case the USA. I am not aware of a similar right in the US like the german "Bild am eigenen Recht". If you know something in this direction, please give us references.
My sources: A Photography Rights collection from Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at law does not mention anything in that direction. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm "The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs." That's why you mentioned the german Law. May I remind you that the german law does not apply to Austria ? Or that Saudi-Arabia recently has banned Blogspot.com alltogether ? I'm sure they would be happy if you would take down the whole Wikipedia server. I mean Commons and Wikipedia can be read in these countries as well. According to your argumentation we should obey to their rules and give up now.
- You have no reason to believe that she is even from Austria let alone Germany. The photo creator did not say what was cited above. That was a Flickr user that is now deleted ( what does not speak for his credibility).
He said : "Mr. Chalk [deleted] says:
By the way, I know this girl. I think she is Australian. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink ) view profile schani Pro User says:
I doubt that very much. Not that I know her or anything, but my guess would be she's Austrian.
But then again, Austria is just like Australia, the only differences being that there are no Kangaroos, and it's nothing at all like Australia..."
- What the image author said was, that he questioned the knowledge of the now deleted user and he probably knew the girl and talked to her because he has an image of her nationality. However it is not good enough to distingush between Austria and Australia. That is supported by the fact that the second girl looks like his girlfriend on holidays.
- If someone questions the legality of german law not ruling in Austria see the discussion about Image:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg
- Many of the people in this discussion believe that there is a comparable law in the US that demands permission of non-celebrities if you want to take a picture of them. That is wrong. That restriction was not made on purpose. It strenghtens the Freedom of press and democracy. See: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm or google. --Leopard 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is the poll still open? In response to Leopard, the right to photograph persons and the right to publish their photos are two different issues. And if they can't be published on a wikipedia project, they needn't be here. Secondly, even if they can (legally) be published on a project, it would still be preferrable to have explicit consent of the persons in the picture as a matter of privacy. // Fred Chess 08:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the photographer about this discussion. --Avatar 19:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He answered: I can clear up the situation to some point: The picture was taken in Vienna, Austria and I don't have either of the girl's permission to publish it. Although it's common practice these days to publish photos on the Internet of anything and anybody I'm pretty certain that Austrian law does at least say that I'd have to take the photo down at the request of the portrayed girls. So, for Wikimedia Commons, it's probably out. --Avatar 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the comment of Avatar: delete --ALE! 08:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete -- Breezie 11:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have had discussions like these here very often. After German law (and Austrian, as far as I know) it is necessary to have the permission of the people depicted before you can publish the photo. It is important that we delete pictures that violate people's personal rights, especially when they are of no particular value to Wikimedia projects. delete --Martinroell 13:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Clear violation of people's right to their own image. Rama 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no notice about the Agreement of publishment of the 2 woman. Because of the "right on the own image", this is committing (german: Es wurde nicht geschrieben, dass die Frauen mit der Veröffendlichung einverstanden waren. Aufgrund des Rechtes am eigenen Bild ist dies zwingend notwendig). --DaB 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly pictures of people he knows well. I doubt very much, that the people are not aware of the fact, that he put them publicly on flicker. On the contrary I assume that they are very much aware of the fact that they are public on flickr under the CC-BY-SA license. He seems to share them there with all those people on the pictures. Speculation is not good in this case so mail him and ask. Everything else is a tedious discussion that leads to nothing, --Paddy 14:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at they, I think they probably argee to be photographed, do not delete. (sorry for bad english) --194.2.91.222 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they agreed to be photographed, but I'm sure they didn't agree to their picture being published on a website and released for free use. --Fb78 20:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The photo has a license, verifiable source and is probably useful to a Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. There are privacy laws in the US, in Germany (and probably in many other countries) that do not allow the publication of pictures of non-celebrities. It could only be accepted it if they were bystanders when you are taking a picture of something else. It's Wikimedia who is publishing these pictures, so Wikimedia would be the target in a possible lawsuit, as would any newspaper or the like. --Fb78 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Broken link, the correct link of the source is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkrivanek/11155405/
- Well, it was a nice party and everyone was drunk. But anyway: I did not see there a declaration that the photographed women agree to a publication on "flickr.com", other websites such as wikimedia.org and then maybe following print media and so on.
- delete. -- Simplicius 21:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the named reason (Recht am eigenen Bild), even when i am very sad when the pic is deleted --BLueFiSH ?! 00:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It's two woman. Where is the bad? --FML hi 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see a possible use for Wikimedia projects. There are better photos to illustrate women, legs, red dresses or parties. --Martinroell 07:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Many of the people in this discussion believe that there is a comparable law in the US that demands permission of non-celebrities if you want to take a picture of them. That is wrong. That restriction was not made on purpose. It strenghtens the Freedom of press and democracy. See: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm or google. --Leopard 23:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per my arguments in the section above.//Fred Chess 08:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the photographer about this discussion. --Avatar 19:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete (same as above) --ALE! 08:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is only for educational or or non-profit use. -Hapsiainen 17:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All three of these are beautiful images. But there is no reason to believe that they are in the public domain. The uploader to the de:wp does not given any information either. Ehrenfest may be dead (by his own hand), but that doesn't make his pictures public domain. They were likely taken from this site, which does release them as press release photos, but that is not the same thing as saying they have no copyright. I am fairly sure the original photographs are held by the Niels Bohr Archive, who likely controls the copyright usage of them. --Fastfission 18:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- en:Paul Ehrenfest is dead for more than 70years, so if they were taken by him they are PD. -guety 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Ehrenfest died in 1933. Thuresson 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 70 years after the death of the author is only relevant if the work was published after 1978. If the work was published between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1978, then the work is protected for a term of 95 years from the date of publication, with the proper notice.[12] I'm absolutely positive these photographs were published in one of the first volumes of Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, which didn't start until the mid-1960s. I don't think it can be safely assumed that these works are in the public domain unless there is other good reason to. --Fastfission 22:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should US right aply here? Ehrenfest was austrian and the pictures were probably taken in europe. -guety 03:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not aware of why U.S. copyright law should apply to images hosted on servers kept in the United States, then I'm not sure you should be voting on copyright issues. For the record, they were published in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences volume 2, copyright 1970 in the United States. The volume says, "The publishers are grateful to the Ehrenfest family for permission to reproduce the Einstein-Bohr photographs and to Professor Martin J. Klein for supplying the negatives." I don't think there's good reason to assume these are in the public domain in the U.S. much less anywhere else. --Fastfission
- Where the images are hosted is not relevant for their copyright status - what is relevant is the place they where created and/or first published. If they where first published in 1970 in the US, US law may apply - however, if Ehrenfest lived and Worked in Europe (Austria? Netherlands? Russia?) at the time, local law may also apply. This is actually quite tricky... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that US copyright law is certainly relevant for commons. Anyway, it's tricky enough that without a clear reason to think they are PD (i.e., the Ehrenfest family or the Niels Bohr Archive etc. saying that they think they are PD), they shouldn't be on commons. --Fastfission 15:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Where the images are hosted is not relevant for their copyright status - what is relevant is the place they where created and/or first published. If they where first published in 1970 in the US, US law may apply - however, if Ehrenfest lived and Worked in Europe (Austria? Netherlands? Russia?) at the time, local law may also apply. This is actually quite tricky... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not aware of why U.S. copyright law should apply to images hosted on servers kept in the United States, then I'm not sure you should be voting on copyright issues. For the record, they were published in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences volume 2, copyright 1970 in the United States. The volume says, "The publishers are grateful to the Ehrenfest family for permission to reproduce the Einstein-Bohr photographs and to Professor Martin J. Klein for supplying the negatives." I don't think there's good reason to assume these are in the public domain in the U.S. much less anywhere else. --Fastfission
- Why should US right aply here? Ehrenfest was austrian and the pictures were probably taken in europe. -guety 03:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I side with Duesentrieb here, and I think it's an important point, never mind how it applies to these images. US copyright law applies to works first published in US. This is a key principle. I've often seen books with the notice (on the copyright page, of course) "Published simultaneously in US and UK" (or variants of this). The intent is to cause the work to be protected under both laws.
Here on Commons, we examine the copyright laws of the country of first publication only; or, in the case of unpublished works, the country of creation. This often works against us, when the given country has more restrictive laws than US. No need for us to cut ourselves on the upswing. Nor is it guaranteed that a Commons server be physically located in US! — Xiong熊talk* 20:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
in doubt keep. --Ikiwaner 16:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC) the pictures where taken in danmark. Keep the pictures and send these copyright-ill-yankees home[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded with wrong name, my mistake, sorry. Marc Mongenet 20:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:HenryMoore RecliningFigure 1951.jpg, has less information and an incorrect copyright tag. -- Solipsist 01:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Children of the Nile
[edit]The uploader of the following screenshots of Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile has tagged them with Free screenshot since he/she owns the game. The official website has no mention of any free license, but carefully adds "© Tilted Mill Entertainment 2004. All Rights Reserved" on every page. It is since very likely that Tilted Mill Entertainment do not allow unrestricted use by anybody. Thuresson 02:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Game simulation river and land.jpg, Image:Sample city built by characters in city building game.jpg, Image:Sample city building character going home after shopping.jpg.
- I have contacted Tilted Mill Entertainment asking for their copyright policy regarding game screenshots created by game customers, and will forward their response as soon as received. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, images uploaded to en: as "fair use". Thuresson 00:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Shenzhen1.JPG with same description. -- Solipsist 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]