Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See Commons:Deletion requests for information in English. In other languages: Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | brezhoneg | català | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | polski | português | suomi | Türkçe | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | Zazaki | +/−

May 26

Bilder von Adolf Hitler

Fast alle dortigen Bilder unterliegen dem Urheberrecht 70 Jahre pma und sind weder PD-old noch aus irgendeinem anderen Grund PD. 217.88.159.32 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP tagged many of the Adolf Hitler pictures with Template:deletionrequest. I tend to agree to those request, hardly any of those pictures might really be PD. For most of them 70 years pma will not apply, also the US-PDGov will normally not apply because those pictures where taken (and published) by german photographers.--Wiggum 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There simple isn't a single free picture of adult Hitler yet and for many years. All of the licences are bogus, all of the pictures have to be deleted. --h-stt !? 07:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitive statement, so please cite your source for this. Two reasons for doubt: It seems to me that Hitler visited other countries like Italy and Austria, so german law is not the only one in play, and not only the nazi government was generating photos. Also there are adult pictures of Hitler from WWI, so those ought to be in range of falling out of copyright. Do you have a source that blows away the WWI pictures? -Mak 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. But let's keep that straight: The burden of proof lays with those who want to keep a certain photograph. And have you seen the so called licences of our files? Are you familiar with british Crown Copyright? It is utterly impoosible, that any of those pictures can be free after Crown Copyright has expired. All those claims are bogus, including the ones made by the Imperial War Museum themself on their website. To be free under german Copyright, or austrian or italian (as they are identical in this regard), the photographer must have died before 1936, no exceptions, whatsoever! And this fact has to be proven here on commons. Unless you can show me a single photograph, that meets this requirements, I say delete to all of them. --h-stt !? 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't support the claim that "all" pictures of Hitler are copyrighted. In particular, not all photographs of Hitler were taken by German authors, and therefore German copyright law does not apply to all of them. I agree that the burden of proof lays with people who want to keep a specific photograph, but you should also refrain from making sweeping claims you don't have the evidence to defend. --Delirium 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest: There are lots of pictures from WWI and WWII with questionable licensing (mostly simple PD-tags). This doesn't apply to pictures showing Hitler himself but also to pictures of other nazi party "celebrities" and pictures of german troops in WWI and WWII. In my mind the commons policies are very strictly, so most of them unfortunately have to be deleted.--Wiggum 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts? a) person of notable public interest, b) treshhold of originality? Not likely. Get your ideas about copyright straight people. --139.18.1.5 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I don't discuss legal matters with persons, who don't identify themselfs, but as this is important, I will answer to this IP: You (and everyone else who wishes to keep these photographs suffer from a misconception over the purpose of the Wikimedia Commons. This is not the database of illustrations for the Wikipedia Projects, but the Commons are a depository for free content - free for every third party to use in their projects inside or outside of the Wikimedia System. Historic value, encyclopedic usefulness and the like are secondary to the single most important point: content free from copyright limitations. Anyone who doesn't accept this primary goal of the commons, must not contribute to this project. --h-stt !? 07:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking of the same thing? I'm talking of those photographs which were made by German state employees for official purposes and where the exclusive usage rights (or indeed the copyright) rests with the German state. The copyright status in these cases should be "published with no restrictions". Your above claim that the copyright rests with the photographer (H. Hoffmann) or his heirs is most certainly false. --139.18.1.5 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the exclusive usage rights lay with the state of germany, the basic copyright expires only 70 years pma, meaning the individual creator. An image from 1936 can't be free by now, one from WW I probably is not free yet. And we have to be sure before we can accept it on the commons. There is no exeption regarding pictures "for official purposes" in the german law. You obviously have only very limited understanding on german copyright and no idea on the origin of those pictures. --h-stt !? 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are aware that Hoffmann forfeited all his property, quite plausibly including all rights to his images, when he was sentenced after the war. That would mean your claim of 70 years pma is bogus. --139.18.1.5 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant under german law. The fundamental auctorial rights can't be forfeit, lost, transfered, sold or what ever. They are linked with the creative author of the work. And expire 70 pma. Hoffmann died in 1957, so the copyrights of any of his photos expire on 2028-01-01. And not a single day earlier. --h-stt !? 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be images of Hitler in the public domain (Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG seems to be an example)) - Image:Hitler in the crowd.jpg tagged by 217.88.159.32 apparently is not: The IWM, which is named as the image's source, clearly states that photographer and copyright are unknown.--Wikipeder 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • please note (see template:PD-Italy) that pictures of Hitler in the PD exist if they were first published in Italy. Italian law states that non-artistic photographs have a 20 years copyright. I'm not completely sure of what is meant by italian photographs but I assume that if the photographer was Italian or the first publication was in Italy then they are PD --Marco Bonavoglia 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a formality, please list the photos nominated for deletion so that we know what we are talking about and so that uploaders can be properly notified. Thuresson 11:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now selected all pictures the IP had tagged, i hope i didn't forget any. The respective comments are the mine.--Wiggum 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another note: It is quite possible that there are PD-US photos of Hitler taken by U.S. news services. By US law at the time copyrights were for a limited time and would expire if not renewed, and some news services, being mainly concerned with short term use of materials, did not always bother to renew. One would need to check for renewals or lack there of for individual US reporters/photographers' images to determine this. I mention this as another counter to the blanket claim that there are no free images of adult Hitler; I suspect anyone willing to do some serious research in to U.S. news backfiles could find a good number. -- Infrogmation 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Pictures without or with inappropriate licensing information

Image:Hitler in the crowd.jpg

taken in Munich in 1914, no photographer provided -> no 70 years pma, not exceeding the "older than 100 years" rule of thumb, How should this be Crown copyright? The IWM states "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown". -> delete

Is deletion considered according to the law applicable in the United States? How about countries where the applicable law does not grant this photohraph any copyright protection?--194.251.240.116 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 DeleteThere is no copyright violation even within 100 miles of this statement. There is not one in any place. Copyright violations hold no place in Commons. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.[1] --Rtc 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hitler and members of the Sturm Abteilung.jpg

No photographer provided, picture taken after 1923. IWM states "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> not older than 100 years, no 70 years pma, Crown copyright - lol -> delete

Image:Nuremberg 1934 - photo 01.jpg

1934 picture, not a single word about photographer or source -> delete

This photo is by Leni Riefenstahl who's work will have to be deleted anyway. Due to the fact that she died only in 2003. --ALE! 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ww2-76.jpg

1938 picture rom [2] - no copyright information provided -> delete

Image:Hitler and Himmler inspect a guard of honour.jpg

the source is IWM, telling us: "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> delete

Image:Adolf Hitler in Paris.jpg

This is a Heinrich Hoffmann photograph, therefore not in the public domain before 2028 -> delete

The risen in de: (for not deletion) was - AFAIR - that this picture was distrain by the USA after the war. May be, we need a copy-right-specialist for this. --DaB. 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright expires 70 year pma irrespective who is the owner of a picture. --Wiggum 10:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hitler - Rommel.jpg

As with all the IWM pics: "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> delete

All deleted --Raymond Disc. 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures claimed to be PD

Image:Adolf Hitler im Ersten Weltkrieg.jpg

WWI-picture (>1914), no photographer provided. NARA claims that the creator is the "Office for Emergency Management" what i really really doubt. -> delete

Photo was taken before 1923 - PD in USA
Only if it was first published in the USA. Kjetil_r 10:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adolf Hitler greets an autobahn worker.jpg

1937 picture, USHMM is the source and says: "Credit: USHMM, courtesy of William Gallagher; Copyright: Public Domain" -> no photographer, no 70 years pma, not older than 100 years -> delete

Image:Adolf Hitler reviews a unit of workers.jpg

As "Adolf Hitler greets an autobahn worker", same year, same source, same credit, same conditions -> delete

While I agree that probably none of these pictures is PD in Germany, we should also consider the situation in other countries. All the images coming from the USHMM or the NARA might actually be PD in the U.S. as having been confiscated. If so, they were placed under the authority of the U.S. Alien Property Custodian (see also [3] and [4]), and might fall under the copyright resoration exceptions in 17 USC 104A(a)(2). I do not know whether that's indeed the case, but it is something to ponder. After all, there must be a reason that a number of U.S. agencies consider these photographs to be in the public domain. It's somewhat unlikely that they all make a mistake, isn't it? Lupo 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they don't care. I think the risk that an author is still alive and will claim his rights on the pictures is low. Because we're demanding to be a source of free content - where the content is free beyond any reasonable doubt, we cannot rely on such probabilities. Regarding international contracts like berne convention i doubt that US authorities are able to "erase" copyright, but i don't know. The IWM files are subject to another argumentation: they do not claim that the pictures are under a free license (usually they noted "copyright unknown").--Wiggum 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt, that 17 USC 104A(a)(2) is applicable to some or all of those pictures, because I don't see how we should prove beyond resonable doubt, that any of them were taken by an photographer who acted on behalf of a gouvernment entity, as that is the only way how the usage rights could be held by "the gouvernment or instrumentality thereof". The auctorial rights are always held by an individual under german law. So I repeat my advice to delete them all. --h-stt !? 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but that the copyright rests always with a real person in Germany is a feature of the modern German UrhG introduced in 1965. Since then, the author is always an individual, and can at most grant some exploitation rights to others, including legal entities, a proces that appears to not include a transfer of the economic rights. However, under the old Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG), which was effective from 1907 until 1965, (a) legal entities could be "authors" (see §5 and also §9(2)) and (b) copyrights could be transferred (see §10(3)). Current German legislation recognizes these cases: §134 explicitly states that legal entities that were considered authors under the old law continued to be considered as such, and §137 acknowledges the continued validity of copyright transfers done under the KUG. §134 is most interesting, because it also stipulates that if a legal entity was considered the author, the old copyright terms had to be applied, not the ones of the new law! Lupo 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that this might also be interesting for the "SS uniforms" discussion below. Comments? Am I howling up the wrong tree? Lupo 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap that whole KUG §134 thing; I forgot about the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, implemented in German law by §137f. It retroactively puts works that were already out of copyright in 1995 under copyright again if they were still copyrighted in some other EU country. Thus even if their KUG-copyright might have been expired once, they are today under copyright until 70 years p.m.a. (Because Spain has had 70 years p.m.a. (or even 80) since 1879.) Drats. Lupo 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, do I understand you correctly that "auctorial rights" = "moral rights", and "usage rights" = "economic rights"?
As to your other point (I don't see how we should prove beyond resonable doubt, that any of them were taken by an photographer who acted on behalf of a gouvernment entity, as that is the only way how the usage rights could be held by "the gouvernment or instrumentality thereof" [which is a necessary condition for 17 USC 104A(a)(2)]): that of course depends on the definition of "reasonable doubt". I guess a lot of people would accept "the NARA or the USHMM say so" as evidence enough to consider such images PD-US. (Kinda playing devil's advocate here.) Lupo 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does your trust in US-gouvernmental agencies include the IRS and the DHS? Here in Germany offical archives are well known for their copyfraudulent claims and/or ignorance for third-party-rights. --h-stt !? 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks for correcting my terminology[reply]
Difficult. I do trust the NARA; I should think images taken e.g. from the SS service records (which they have in their holdings, though not online) might indeed fall under that very exceptional provision of 17 USC 104A(a)(2) and thus be PD-US. I don't generally trust the USHMM, though; they too often label images as "© USHMM" when it is entirely unclear on what grounds they do so. If the USHMM says something was PD and came from the National Archives, I tend to believe them and consider the works PD-US. What are IRS and DHS? Taxes and "homeland safety"? I don't think I've ever come across any image from there, so I'll have to pass on those lacking experience with their practice of labelling images. Lupo 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "trustablity" might just be a question of policy. Can you agree, that the IWM-pictures with "Copyright unknown" and the NARA/USHMM pictures without any copyright notice cannot be kept? Besides, i don't think that the old KUG law could be useful, a legal entity could have hold the copyrights only if no author was known. This special case is difficult to prove. Concerning the SS-Uniforms: how can we know if this nazi party manual was published without notice about the authors or the artist(s) who draw the pictures?--Wiggum 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. If these institutions give no indication or say "copyright unknown", we should not consider the works PD unless we can ascertain (to a reasonable level of confidence) the PD status of a particular image in other ways. Note that I even extend this to the Library of Congress: if the library of congress says "status not evaluated", I do not consider an image PD, even if it is available at the LoC and despite the wording of {{PD-LOC}}. And yes, the special case on 17 USC 104A(a)(2) is very hard to prove. I would only apply it to images coming from the U.S. National Archives, where we can reasonably believe that the image came from a document in their holding that might have belonged to the government (such as the SS service records I mentioned). "Reasonably believe" of course again involves some level of trust, since many such documents are not available online and we'd have to believe the uploader's say-so. We had a case on the English Wikipedia recently, where en:User:Husnock (a trusted user and U.S. Army officer working for the NARA!) had uploaded such an image. It was kept (see en:Image:HLHimmler.jpg and en:Image_talk:HLHimmler.jpg). I don't think that's bad; whenever we post some external confirmation for some fact, we essentially extend our trust to people we know even less... On the SS-Uniforms: well, we could find out easily by having someone look at the physical manual and tell us. Lupo 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(back to the left) I resorted the pictures. There are only three of the images in question which are claimed to be PD by NARA or USHMM. I'm pretty sure the Himmler picture will have not a chance at commons, but you're right - in cases of third party pictures which are not older than 100 years and where the photographer is actually or presumably not known the acceptance of an upload is a matter of trust. There should be a community consensus about what is trustworthy, otherwise we will conduct such a discussion regularly. The question of trust applies to the SS-Uniforms as well: I don't have the manual at my disposal. The Uploader of the pictures has been blocked in de-Wiki for POV-proliferation in articles about turkic peoples and for referring his information to books of former SS-Obergruppenführer like Felix Steiner. Trustworthy? I don't think so.--Wiggum 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not trustworthy :-) But anyway, see my comment above on the KUG §134 reasoning: let's just forget it; it's probably a red herring. The EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, implemented in German law by §137f makes such works copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a. anyway. Would've been too good. Lupo 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you give up resistance? ;-) What about the thre pictures with PD claim? I think the 1914 picture is bogus, this was most likely not made by an US authority. While the two others were taken in 1937 there is at least the possibility that this Mr. Gallagher was the author. On the other hand, he or a family member could have fought in Germany during WW II and brought the pictures as spoils of war. With a very strict interpretation we cannot keep the pictures while there is no author provided. I don't know.--Wiggum 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na toll, ich habe den LA gestellt und verstehe kein Wort von der Diskussion. 217.88.177.218 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn du magst, kann ich dich auf meiner Diskussionsseite etwas auf dem laufenden halten, sag einfach Bescheid, wenn du Interesse hast.--Wiggum 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kann bitte über deutsche Bilder mit deutschen Fotografen nach deutschem Recht deutsch diskutiert werden? Was interessiert es, was die Ami's denken? Wir haben deutsches Urheberrecht! --217.88.165.234 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hitler with children and Baldur von Schirach.jpg

One of my uploads -- Image:Hitler with children and Baldur von Schirach.jpg needs to be added to this deletion request. I was under the mistaken impression that material from the Borden-Clarke collection was governed by Canadian copyright, but this image is one of Hoffman's (PD in Canada, but that doesn't help us). I apologise for the additional work. Jkelly 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goering, Mussolini, Hitler, Hess.jpg

... and User:139.18.1.5 tagged Image:Goering, Mussolini, Hitler, Hess.jpg as a speedy delete for "Very likely not a Canadian work." Library and Archives Canada gives authorship as "Unkown", and there isn't any further information about the collection. Jkelly 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template this should be a work of a Canadian while the source site tells us that the creator is actually unknown. Since it has been created in 1938 i don't see any reason for PD.--Wiggum 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (statement moved from a duplicate discussion below. --ALE! 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

June 24

Almost everything in Category:Public art in Chicago

My interpretation of Commons:Derivative works is that almost everything in this category should be deleted (perhaps not the Buckingham Fountain pictures). As four of the pictures in this category were taken by me I would like to know what others think on this. --JeremyA 14:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That dreaded "no panorama freedom for sculptures in the U.S." thing again! I fear that you may well be right. See also User:Alx/Sandbox and the talk page. On the Buckingham Fountain: is this a piece of architecture or art? If architecture, it'd be fine, if art, it might not. According to [5], Marcel François Loyau lived 1895 - 1936. On the other hand, Image:Chicago_Millenium_Park.jpg may be fine as the sculpture/video installation/fountain/whatever is arguably not the main focus of the image but also shows the crowds admiring it. The same goes for Image:Escupidor.JPG, and maybe even for Image:Millennium-park-wall-squirt-in-chicago-ill-usa.jpg. Image:BuckinghamFountainNView.jpg is also OK. The others might be problematic. Lupo 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the fountain permanently installed? Is it still covered by copyright then? howcheng {chat} 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Lupo 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Image:Chicago Millenium Park.jpg is a more general view, however I would say that the Crown Fountain is definitely the subject of Image:Escupidor.JPG and Image:Millennium-park-wall-squirt-in-chicago-ill-usa.jpg. Is the Buckingham Fountains architecture or art?—agruable both ways. I put the Buckingham Fountain photos into the public art category because I felt that if the Crown Fountain was considered art, why not the Buckingham? --JeremyA 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cartridges.jpg

The copyright status of this sxc.hu image was never clarified on wikipedia, it is thus inappropriate for commons, as it will soonbe deleted from wiki. --Circeus 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:SXC, as long there are no incompatible usage restrictions like noncommercial or nonderivative these images are still accepted here. --Denniss 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that as of now, there is no way to check the exact status of that image and whether the original upload was okay, because the user's account does not exist anymore and the original upload did not state clearly that the user hreleased the images under a compatible license. Circeus 14:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going by Commons:Stock.xchng images the best solution is to get a written confirmation by the author.... The account on sxc.hu does exist, but he has removed all his photos. But he does link to http://www.dreamstime.com/Seagrave_info , from there he should be contacted whether he releases this image with a free license... / Fred Chess 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

Image:Louvre Pyramid.jpg

As far as I remember images of this object were removed as copyvio -- EugeneZelenko 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is a whole category about the Louvre Pyramid... Jastrow 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Siebrand 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC) As long as the deletion request is only based on IIRC.[reply]
 Delete No panorama freedom in France. --Fb78 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment French law does not apply in Tampa, Florida, USA (where the Wikipedia servers are). // Liftarn
 Delete. Against french law. Traroth 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If this image was deleted, than a lot of images in Category:Louvre Pyramid should be considered also for deletion and an explanation what pictures are "allowed" should be added to this category. --ALE! 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment At least those images that do not show the pyramid as a central element of the picture should be kept, because a French court ruled that in this case no copyright can be claimed on the image of the pyramid. --Phrood 17:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yes, Eugene, similar images have been deleted before. I remember there were some documents that showed Wikimedia has not permission to use the images. But I don't know where, unfortunately. / Fred Chess 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Phrood is correct. Under French law, there are limits to the extend an artist can enforce copyright on public art objects, as noted in Commons:Licensing#Works_of_arts.2C_including_architecture.2C_exhibited_in_public_spaces. The paragraph immediately prior makes a statement about the Louvre pyramid that Fred may be recalling. Anyway- the French courts have ruled that awarding an artist placement of their work of art in a public plaza does not entitle the artist to copyright control over all images of that plaza that might include the artist's work. In cases where the copyrighted work "constituait un simple élément" only, then the artist is not entitled to copyright protection.[6] So not all images of Louvre's square require copyright under French law, so long as the pyramid constitutes a simple element of the composition. Clearly that would not be the case with an image where the pyramid takes up 50% of the pixels. So where does the pyramid become a "simple element"? It's not necessary to visit the Louvre to know from a diagram that it is impossible to take a picture of the entire plaza without the pyramid calling attention to itself due to its immense proportions and its central location in the square. So when is the copyrighted work just one of many simple elements, and how do we know when it is central? In answer ALE's point on the need for guidance for users, I think we could say something along the following: This issue can be answered by asking if the photo would have value if someone stood, facing away from the camera in a position which only blocked the copyrighted work. Although it might make a poor photograph, if the answer is yes, the photograph retains much of its information value, then the copyrighted work is a simple element in that composition. If the answer is no, then this ruling would offer no sactuary from French law. -Mak 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete : The purpose of this picture is clearly to show only the pyramid. This modern artwork is copyrighted, as its representations. As Mak says, pictures from the square showing the pyramid can be placed under PD for example, but only if that building is an element of the picture and not the main one. This is because the square and the antic Louvre are free to snap and the pyramid takes so much place that it's not possible to take a picture without its presence. There are few cases in France like this one. The other famous one is the Eiffel tower : as you can do what you want during the day, at night, nothing is possible because the lightning of the tower is copyrighted and any view too. Sting 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More images, added by me Fred Chess 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Louvre DSC00662.JPG

Image:Louvre pyramide.jpg

Image:Louvre pyramide medium.jpeg

Image:Louvre.courtyard.paris.arp.jpg

Image:Paris, Innenhof des Louvre.jpg

Image:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg

But before I nominated more images, I found this on Image talk:Paris Louvre Pyramid Sunset.jpg:


The deletion 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]
Comments, anyone? Fred Chess 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Image:LocationASEAN.png

Too small, better map at Image:ASEAN members.png. --Rdb 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I like it - we should try to get permission from the foundation -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer used in any wikipedia, I removed it from all articles which were using it. Compare [7], only usage are 2 local copies on en: and id:.
Ok  Delete then, since it is so small and the better one has the same information. (Might have been easier to upload over the original file though, wouldve saved trouble of votes for deletion & replacing images) --Astrokey44 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duesentrieb: Warum Erlaubnis der Foundation? Bist du beim falschen Bild gelandet?! / Why permission from the foundation? --Rdb 10:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most images on Vigeland Sculpture Park

These images are for non-commercial use only under Norwegian law. One has already been deleted for this reason. Please delete all images on which the statues are shown in a prominent way. - Quistnix 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see an accurate translation of the relevant law into English first. Also, "prominent way" is just a little too vague to be enforced as policy, so that needs to be clarified too. Stan Shebs 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see the discussion above at Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Vigeland_stampvoetend_jochie.jpg. NielsF 00:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which purports to supply the translation in an unreadable format, and didn't address what "prominent way" is supposed to mean. I can crop my pictures in all sorts of ways if that's what it takes to make people happy, but don't intend to do it as some sort of passive-aggressive trial-and-error process. Stan Shebs 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreadable as in you don't have MS Word, I guess? The image above was deleted because of this paragraph of Norwegian copyright law:
§ 24. Works of art and photographic works which form part of a collection or which are exhibited or offered for sale may be depicted in catalogues of the collection and in announcements of the exhibition or sale.
Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially.
Buildings may be freely depicted.
So I guess images like Image:Vigeland angry boy.jpg are not possible because the work of art is the main subject of the picture, which would make the picture not possible for commercial use, which should be possible for it to remain on Commons. NielsF 10:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. So a picture of a bridge with sculptures on it is OK, but not a closeup of any single sculpture. Stan Shebs 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First we should find the sculptor behind every sculpture. I don't think Gustav Vigeland made all of them. (On the other hand, technically, those who don't have information on the sculptor are {{subst:nsd}}.) -Samulili 10:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole theory of the park was that it was all Vigeland's work, but I'm no expert. Something made by uncredited helpers would still be copyright Vigeland. Stan Shebs 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentAll of the statues in the park are Vigeland's work, in the sense that he made the drawings and/or models from which the final bronze casts or stone carvings were made. My attempt of sorting these images out would be:
  • Keep:
  • Uncertain:
  • Delete:

--Cnyborg 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cnyborg's sorting seems reasonable. Kjetil_r 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- Ranveig 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elvis template.gif

CKX Inc./Elvis Presley Enterprises owns the rights to Elvis' likness and image in several countries. Not certain that this usage is applicable for public domain. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about this image. It was licensed as PD-self. That is ok.
CKX Inc./Elvis Presley Enterprises owns the rights to Elvis' likness. However, I believe that such a small icon can not violate the rights of these companies.
But being in doubt, I vote delete.  Delete --ALE! 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete copyvivo --gildemax 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if they have copyright the Elvis' likeness. It's rather a registered trademark or registred product form. But not copyright itself. Shaqspeare 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Image:Christmas seal US 1925.jpg

No information on the original creator of the seal, and created post-1923 in the US, so I think the seal is still under original copyright. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Magic words

Simply a redirect to Help:Contents, no page links there and no one will probably type that in hoping to get to help:contents. Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs

On second thoughts almost all the help redirects (listed here in itlaics) should be deleted.

June 28

Image:Unisphere-cc.jpg

The Unisphere is not PD, it was made by Peter Muller-Munk (1904-1967) -- Kjetil_r 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Worlds Fair NYC 1964.jpg ditto. Kjetil_r 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is photo of public architecture, taken on public land. There is no way Muller-Munk owns any rights to it under US law.--Pharos 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Unisphere should be considered a work of art, thus the artist has the sole right to produce derivative works. See Commons:Derivative works. Kjetil_r 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a public monument in a city park, and the designer no more owns the rights to it than Maya Lin owns the rights to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Incidentally, I did some research and Muller-Munk wasn't the designer anyway; that honor belongs to landscape architect Gilmore D. Clarke.--Pharos 04:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's rather construction/landscape object than sculpture. Shaqspeare 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, for the reasons listed above. Chancemichaels 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)--Chancemichaels[reply]

Image:Philae from southeast.jpg

None of this material may be reproduced in any form without permission from the Griffith Institute, Oxford, OX1 2LG (See given source) definitly isn't compatible with the Commons Licensing Policy. --Kajk ✉ 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EFr LAMI EPFL 93.jpg

Source and author given as LAMI EPFL (Laboratoire de Microinformatique - Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne). Nothing indicates that User:Alex Newman has the right to release this picture into PD. -Samulili 11:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deutsche_Fußball-Fans_bei_der_WM_2006.JPG

no personal allowance in the licence (es fehlt der Hinweis auf den Model-Release-Vertrag, d.h. sind die abgebildeten Personen mit der Veröffentlichung einverstanden)--RvM 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep because of the wigs and full bodypainting they are not really recognizable -- Gorgo 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BEAC500FCFA.jpg - Image:BEAC2000FCFA.jpg - Image:BEAC10000FCFA.jpg

Unable to find any legislative references about free use of that. So delete it please (Unused). --Powermonger 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normalerweise erlauben die Zentralbanken die Verwendung von Geldscheinabbildungen für Publikationen etc. Einzige Einschränkung ist meist, daß die Abbildungen nicht als Vorlage für Falsifikate dienen können. Das ist bei so kleinen Bildern schon mal gegeben. Zur Sicherheit kann ja noch "Muster" oder "Specimen" in die Bilder gemalt werden. Behalten. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I write in Swedish now, to make sure that noone will understand this discussion?
I will be nicer and answer, in English, your statement that "central banks allow the use of notes for publications, etc". This is still a matter of copyright that needs to be confirmed by the bank because the bank, or possibly even the creator of the notes in question, can restrict the use of the note. Notes from some countries have for example been deleted from Commons.
So the question is what usage the "Banque des États d'Afrique Centrale" allows. Until it can be confirmed that they allow use under Commons license requirements, I'd say {{vd]]. / Fred Chess 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ik schrijf dit maar in het Nederlands zodat niemand het begrijpt ;-). Anyway, from a publication of the BCEA ([8]): Toute reproduction ou représentation intégrale ou partielle, par quelque procédé que ce soit, du texte et/ou des billets contenus dans le présent ouvrage, est strictement interdite alors:  Delete. For those who don't speak French: Any reproduction or integral or partial representation, by whatever procedure, of the text and/or the bills contained in this work, is strictly prohibited (rough Babelfish translation, couldn't be bothered). NielsF 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

Image:Albert_Heijn_huismerk.JPG

SPAM - no relevance for wiki --RvM 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Wikipedia, not the norwegian. I think this picture shouldn't be deleted form Wikimedia because there are also pictures of for example a Coke cola tin can. That is not Spam. (my english is not very wel). Steven lek 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry of course it is Dutch milk. --ALE! 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, no milk :) It's the taste "milk chocolate". I don't know how this stuff is called in english, but in dutch it is nl:hagelslag. Effeietsanders 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked in a book and the english translation of "hagelslag" is sprinkles. Steven lek 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it should be deleted since it is an unfree image - Quistnix 20:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why is this an unfree image? There are much more images with a brand on it, like this image, or this image, or this image! Steven lek 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this image, we need it for the dutch wikipedia. It's totally not spam, because there are more pictures of brands (like cocacola etc) Steven lek 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frplogo.png, Image:Høyrelogo.png, Image:Krflogo.png, Image:Logo of the Norwegian Labour Party DNA.svg, Image:RV web.png, Image:SVlogo.png, Image:Venstrelogo.png, Image:Kystpartiet logo.png

No legal information provided saying why these logos of Norwegian political parties should be freely distributed. All except one upploaded by User:L.m.k. --Slarre 04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteLogos of Norwegian political parties may not be used for any purpose. --Kjetil_r 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree with Kjetil r assessment. Siebrand 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I also agree Kjetil r's assessment. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 06:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The uploader was active on Commons on July 16, 2006 for the last time. Therefore he was informed and had his chance to clearify the subject. He did not and therefore it has to be assumed that the logos are not freely useable. --ALE! 15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kavala. Imaret de Mehmet Ali.jpg

not LGPL, may copyvio --Shizhao 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How do you know that? Shaqspeare 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete "Content courtesy Ekdotike Athenon S.A." at source URL provided in upload info. Siebrand 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abajolaloce.jpg

Replaced by Image:Abajolaloce.png. King of Hearts 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Image:Methane-2D.png

Replaced by Image:Methane-2D.svg. King of Hearts 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So what does this mean? Another "derivative effect". -Edbrown05 11:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take a picture of a statue, you call the photograph derivative; Neutalizer draws a picture of a graph, you call the drawing derivative. What's it all mean? -Edbrown05 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, I noted Commons:Derivative works, where you at? -> French Parliament adopts controversial copyright bill, I don't think you're going to make it. -Edbrown05 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the image has been obsoleted. Also, the new image (SVG) takes less space (10KB vs. 12KB) because simple lines are better represented with SVG, and it has better quality when scaled. -- King of Hearts 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deletion guidelines it is not a reason for deletion AND it is enough to get angry reactions in other projects.. For your information, it is better to use Jmol for these things anyway. GerardM 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, using a tracer and deleting the original is a GFDL copyright violation. You are deleting the very source of the work, and therefore the SVG has become illegal on commons after deletion of the original. - Quistnix 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tunku Abdul Rahman.jpg

Found it on speedydeletions and made it a normal deletion request. It needs to be clarified at this image wether a PD-50-years-after-publication rule applies in that case or not. Arnomane 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason for it to be PD. Shaqspeare 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from an official Malaysian Government potrait that was widely used in Malaysia. So, a political poster tag could be used instead. In any case, the image could be more than 50 year old, though I am uncertain of the date the image was first published.

Image:Place de la concorde paris 1919.jpg

© Snapshots of the Past 2001-2005. All rights reserved. All text, photographs, and graphics contained on this web site are owned by Snapshots of the Past. No portion of this web site may be reproduced, redistributed or published in any form without written permission. (Source [9]) I don't think this is compatible with the license policy here on commons. --Kajk ✉ 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a spurious copyright claim. Owning and selling a physical copy of this photo doesn't mean they were the copyright holders. The picture was taken in February 1919. Unfortunately I can't read the text in the lower right corner; I would guess it contains the photographer's name. Publication date unknown. Lupo 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: another copy of this image can be found at the Globe & Mail. Lupo 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it actually is {{PD-old}} if the creator died at least 17 years after the image was created and the copyright claim is void... --Kajk ✉ 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... in this case we would have to delete the image, because of missing source information (creator)? --Kajk ✉ 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I am willing to give this image the benefit of the doubt. — Erin (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete As much as I hate to put in a delete vote, is 1919 really a suitable date to give benefit of the doubt? It seems odd to assume that creator died within 17 years of the image being taken; many professional photographers started their trade very young in this period, and there is a real chance that the photographer died within the last decade! Also, since the photographer's name is apparently on the original photograph (though illegible on this image file) it's impossible to use any extra leniency given to anonymous works. I currently have access to a large number of old photographs under European copyright law (so no pre-1923 US PD available), and can find very few that are out of copyright after about 1910. Conversely, a large majority (but not all!!) of the pre-1890 photographs are PD. Even 1900 is a slightly troublesome cut-off date, and I think that 1919 is too late. TheGrappler 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg

Sculpture. Seems to have been made after Ruth's death (after 1948), thus the photo is a derivative work of a unfree work. See Commons:Derivative works. Kjetil_r 11:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone supposes, after I went to the trouble of reporting all information that was available on the the plaque of this public statue at the time I uploaded it, (information, by the way, that was lost here due to ineptitude or arrogance on this site), that you think I am able or motivated to supply the name responsible for this stupid sculptored image of a young Babe Ruth situated in the town he grew up in that now honors him, is sadly mistaken. -Edbrown05 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but we can not accept images which a restricted by third party copyrights. Please read the derivative works link above. I thank you for your hard work, but we can't keep thing image. --Gmaxwell 16:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the delete argument speculative and weak. Neutralizer 21:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US Copyright law is quite clear. § 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works states that “the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize ... to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work” --Kjetil_r 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, somebody sticks their sculpture in my path, and wants to restrict how I photograph their walkway obstruction. -Edbrown05 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So where is it, that this site says this sculpture is copyrighted? Who says so? -Edbrown05 07:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Law of the United States of America: § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general says that sculptural works are copyrighted. Kjetil_r 08:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stick your stuff in a public place, then any sort of public stuff will happen with it. The sculptor didn't even get a name acclaimed to the stature on its pedestal. Anonymous stuff should be dealt with anonymously. -Edbrown05 07:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Anonymous stuff" is still copyrighted. Have some respect for creative people and their rights, please. --Fb78 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you must... in the meantime, there is a chance I may revisit the statue in the not so distant future. There at the statue, I might find what I could have missed, and what you are looking for, the sculptor's name. If there is, as I believe, no name of the sculptor on the pedestal, there are other means I'll get around to asking for in a try to identify who created this... because it is a good pictue of something I hold in perhaps less esteem than others, and should do the right thing for its originator, best regards Commons. -Edbrown05 04:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not anonymous. It is the work of Susan Luery, still alive. 6th hit (on the first result page!) of a Google search for +"babe's dream", the title of the statue. Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. There is no panorama freedom for sculptures in the U.S. Lupo 08:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or actually (and even better), contact her and ask for permission to license this image, which is a derivative work, under the GFDL or as CC-BY-SA! Lupo 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What!? Can't post a picture of a public statue on-line! Are you crazy Lupo? I thought the requirements to satisfy United States copyright law, at least in-so-far-as its implementation here, was simply to provide credit, by naming, the statue's sculptor. -Edbrown05 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm, please please, sister Luery, can I place this picture of your sculpture on Commons? Not! She got paid for the thing and it sits in a public place... Edbrown05 07:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm is completely misplaced. Read up on U.S. Copyright Law, and if you don't like it, take it up with your Senator of whatever in Washington, D.C. to lobby for a change of the legislation. Good luck. You may have actually far better chances asking her for permission, if you do so politely. But it must be a general GFDL or CC-BY-SA permission for the photo, non-commercial or "Wikipedia only" isn't good enough. We have a standard "request for permission" available somewhere... Lupo 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI: I have contacted Susan Luery, and we're still negotiating. Chances are slim, but maybe the horse learns to sing. Lupo 08:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ed, would you be willing to place that image under the GFDL (instead of PD)? She certainly won't agree to our publishing a PD image, but maybe GFDL would be fine. Lupo 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I truly am sorry for my sarcasm. I do believe, now that the sculptor is known, that she should be acknowledged with this photograph. It was not my intention to not acknowledge the sculptor. The answer to the question of "Who" sculpted the statue escaped me at the time I photographed it and later uploaded it.
I will never be expert in copyright law and grant Commons the rights to apply any appropriate copyright tags to this photograph without any further consent from myself, so that it might remain permissible for publication by the originating sculptor. -Edbrown05 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, let me see if I am getting this insanity straight... I, me, yours truly, needs permission from the scuptor of this statue to upload a photograph of it.
You, meaning the sculptor Luery, block my walkway with your crappy sculpture, and think you can withhold permission — from you as the creator of this obstruction placed in my path on a public concourse passed by thousands nightly during a home baseball game in Baltimore MD — to upload. You get credit for a piece of crap sculpture .... that's it. -Edbrown05 03:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is a 2-d photography of the 3-d sculpture. The Photography is not a reproducing the sculpture. Fotografirovanie 3-d object there is creative act. To my mind author of this work is a photographer User:Edbrown05. If he some fantastic way has loaded in Wikipedia 3-d image, that his certainly follow to delete. --Yakudza 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Edbrown05 is the author of this photograph. However this fotograph is a derivative work according to US law (see Commons:Derivative works), it doesn't matter if it's a 2D or 3D image. So the copyright of the original work still exists, wchich is why I'd have to vote  Delete. NielsF 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Irp.jpg Image:Irp1635.jpg and others

Image:Irp.jpg, Image:PodlaskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodlaskieIRP.JPG, Image:SmoleńskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodlaskieRP.JPG, Image:CzernihowskieIRP.JPG, Image:WitebskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodolskieIRP.JPG, Image:MińskieIRP.JPG, Image:MścisławskieIRP.JPG, Image:PołockieIRP.JPG, Image:PoznańskieIRP.JPG, Image:RawskieIRP.JPG, Image:Irp1635.jpg, Image:IRP3Narodów.JPG, Image:PolSwedU.JPG, Image:Irp1701.jpg, Image:RP 1686.JPG, Image:RP 1701.JPG, Image:7 yearswar.JPG, Image:UPolSzwedz.JPG, Image:PolRuswar 1792.JPG, Image:PolishRuswar 1792.JPG

All of these maps are copyright violation of the maps I created myself and uploaded to wikipedia (particularly of Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png, which is a featured picture here in commons). Two months ago I contacted Mathiasrex asking him how could we settle the issue. I proposed that he gave me due credit for my work (as requested by both the original {{Halibutt Copyright GFDL}} and the {{GFDL}} itself) and that he removed his claims of authorship, but to no avail. Halibutt 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be simply better to add your copyright tags to them? Considering Mathiasrex lack of replies, I tend to view his activities like that of a bot: sometimes he does good stuff, but his edits need to be revised by a human editor :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I proposed that to him two months ago, but that did not work. Perhaps I'll simply create such maps tonight basing on the source file rather than on some jpeg scan. I'll see what I can do. Halibutt 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case where he should remove claims of authorship. He is an author of those maps, not the author. In fact the GFDL requires that both authors are credited. David Newton 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not release my maps under plain {{GFDL}}. I released them under my own license modelled after it, named {{Halibutt Copyright GFDL}}. It is compliant with the standard GFDL with the exception that I specifically request credit for my work. This however has not been granted by Mathiasrex, who claims that it's actually his work, without even crediting me, not to mention preserving the proper license (as requested by both GFDL and my modification) or the copyright tag. Halibutt 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete just in case anybody wondered what is my stance. Halibutt 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marcin Wolski.jpg and Image:Kasza gryczana.jpg

The uploader has made copyright violations before and I am 99.99% sure that these images are simply copied from the Internet. --Derbeth 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg

Copyritgh status for images from this site are sketchy at best, see the disclaimer. --Circeus 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that he is the copyright holder of these images, he merely scanned them. See where he says "It is source of photos that are BELIEVED to be in the public domain, so they can be used by anyone, for any purpose, without obtaining permission". Although we can't tell if the image is actually public domain, so perhaps we should still delete. --Gmaxwell 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly probable this image (and other images regarding british naval ships of that time) had been made by Royal Navy sailors so {{PD-BritishGov}} should be used. --Denniss 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without further information, the probability of "made by Royal Navy sailors" is 0.5 which is far away from being enough. Note: I couldn't find anything about "HMS Commonwealth" at IWM.--Wiggum 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph could not possibly have been taken after 1916, as the vessel sunk then. If it was an official photograph (as seems highly likely - at the time, photography equipement would not have been available to sailors to use in thier own time whilst aboard ship), then the Crown Copyright expired at the very latest in 1966, and probably in 1955. If it was a personal image, but published within roughly a decade of being taken, which is certainly the next most likely status, the copyright will have expired (image published before 1923). If it was not published, then the copyright will (have) expire(d) 70 years after the death of the photographer (possibly, but not necessarily, in the past), or 120 years after creation (in the future - 2025 or possibly 2036) if photographer remains unknown. There are also fun issues if it was ever published in the US. As such, we can sit on it for three decades and then use it. Or, possibly, find out the actual status of the image. :-) James F. (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a much better reproduction of that image on Phil Curme's web site, and yeat another version is here. I've asked Phil Curme whether he could tell me more about this picture, such as where he got it from or whether he knows when it was published or who took it. Lupo 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to HMS Commonwealth, she did not sink in 1916 but was sold for scrap in 1921. Anyway, the image was taken in 1912 and comes from a postcard available at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, UK. Phil was unclear about whether that was an old postcard (or a facsimile of one), or a new postcard showing an image for the NMMs collection. I have not found any 1912 image in the NMM catalogue of negatives. I think there is reason to believe that it was indeed an old postcard, given the existence of this version... if so, it is reasonable to assume that it was published between 1912 and 1918. As such, the image would be {{PD-US}} (pre-1923), unless you insist on the stricter 1909 date (see below). In the UK, I think it would be out of copyright (author unknown, photograph created before June 1, 1957: copyrighted until 70 years after creation or 70 after publication, if published within 70 years since creation). Lupo 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got an e-mail from the NMM today; they state that the image came from the collection of Dr. Oscar Parkes, some of which is now held at the IWM. This Mr. Parkes is probably the author of several books on British ships, see e.g. ISBN 0-850-52604-3 or ISBN 1-557-50075-4, at one time also editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and I bet he was also the painter of this picture... The NMM doesn't know the photographer's identity, but acknowledges having reprinted the image as a postcard. See also [10] for some additional trivia on the ship, or see its listing in Jane's Fighting Ships 1919. BTW, it appears that Jane's Fighting Ships 1919 is still copyrighted... can they really do this?? Unfortunately, I still don't know more about this photograph, and in particular not if it was published as an old postcard. Lupo 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Souillac-blason.gif

REASON (the author is not the one i asked permission :()

Don't be so cryptic. Could you explain a bit more. --::Slomox:: >< 11:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense, he obtained 'permission' for the image, but later discovered that the person he asked was not the copyright holder. This is not uncommon, but it's uncommon that we catch it before the copyright holder complains. --Gmaxwell 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But whom did he ask? And who is the copyright holder? And why is Image:Ecusson souillac.jpg OK, but this not? --::Slomox:: >< 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all lies, they are not the authors. They use a vector drawing package to copy a template. But copying doesn't make you being an author; in fact, copyright prohibits that. But CoAs are often not protected by copyright, but by other rights.--Rtc 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Image:AMD Athlon 64FX.jpg

There is a debate about the licence. I believe the licence is free for website and publication"Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use. When downloading pictures , you are agreeing to the above condition." [11]. Before uploading more images from the AMD website, I want to be sure of the licence. --~Pyb 11:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an AMD press image. Your citation missed some essential parts: Low res version for use in webpages and Hi res version for use in publications. This is a website here and it has the Hi res version thus braking the agreement. Also the AMD site does not mention derivative works or event third party (commercial) use. See also usage guidelines here. These image should fall under the fair use regulation but nothing really freely usable.
The same problem with Image:AMD Opteron.jpg and Image:AMD 64X2 Dual-Core.jpg. --Denniss 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep (Sorry Denniss I forgot this issue, should have commented earlier).
I would like to draw your attention to the text of the website which goes:
This page includes both AMD product imagery and logos. The listed pictures come in two formats:
  1. Low-resolution pictures (for use in websites)
  2. High resolution pictures (for use in print publications)
Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use.
Now, as I interpret it, the distinction of website-image and printing-image has nothing to do with copyrights, it is just a suggestion from the nice people of AMD who realizes that website developers need not to download a 3.5 MB image when they need only a 50KB thumbnail. / Fred Chess 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete press license. They should put a regular CC-whatever-they-want there, then we can keep. --Rtc 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:DameEdnaPoster.jpg

Copyrighted Image of Dame Edna. --Steschke 13:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted' --Raymond Disc. 05:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Costume from Konavle near Dubrovnik, Croatia.jpg

stolen from: http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/girl_konavle.jpg --Decius 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uploader has on Nov 12, 2005 uploaded a large number of scans from brochures of the Croat National Tourist Office. These brochures were labelled as "gratis" and credited several photographers for their images. Nowehere did they say it was PD, and it isn't PD-self for sure. Although the particular source given above is not the immediate image source (it's too small), it is clear to me that the version we have was also scanned from such a brochure. The Croatian Embassy has other images, evidently from the tourist office; see e.g. Image:Lavender fields, Island of Hvar, Croatia.JPG, which exists at the Croation embassy in Canada as http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/hvar_tour.jpg: the file name clearly indicates that this comes from the tourist office. Lupo 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

Image:Uganda coa.png and Image:Uganda coa.gif

These are artist's impressions of the Coat of Arms of Uganda, and do not even remotely look like the real one. The proper image is at Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg. I believe it is better to have no image than to have a false one. --Ezeu 03:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the version you uploaded is "the real one"? Thuresson 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because he took it from an official site and it is the version used by the authorities of Uganda. But I don't know whether Uganda has a law, that specifies the exact design of the coat of arms. Perhaps even the authorities use the more inaccurate version on Internet (representation of Ugandan government on the Internet is not very professional). And perhaps all versions are problematic cause of copyright? The coat of arms is from 1962, so it is not PD-old. --::Slomox:: >< 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the difference between the two/three, apart from the fact that one is lighter, slightly larger, has a source and copyright information, the other is darker and the source link is a dead one. They are both representing the same thing and of course it's an artist's representation of the coat of arms because it was drawn by someone other than the artist who drew the original. The only one which should be deleted should be the .gif one which isn't good for rescaling on pages. Craigy 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess I'll have to draw a more correct image myself. Wouldnt like to see a distorted Coat of Arms of Uganda being spread around. --Ezeu 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep In heraldry, what matters is how the coat of arms has been described in the blazon. There is a blazon available at www.ugandahighcommission.co.ke and within the limits of the blazon there is considerable artistic license to create the coat of arms. WikiCommons already has two correct coat of arms (the png- and gif version) with an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't teach others, when you for yourself don't know exactly ;-) What you linked is a description, not a blazon. And it is not correct, that only the blazon matters. Some coats of arms have also one specific official design. For example the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is only the symbol of the state Lower Saxony, if the horse is depicted in exactly that way. But I don't know, whether this is also true for Uganda. --::Slomox:: >< 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vollschiff Preussen.jpg

Incorrect/missing licence. The picture is licenced by GFDL, but should be - if ever - licenced as PD-old. Tho photographer is unknown, the date stated as "before 1910". That's not sufficient. The photographer has to be dead for seventy years. --Zinnmann 08:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the picture says that it's a photo of the Preussen when it ran out New York. Since the Preussen travelled from NYC to Yokohama in 1908, the picture is not old enough :-(--Wiggum 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Delta Force during Operation Just Cause.jpg

the website doesnt state that it is a work of the United States federal Government, no hint where it is taken from --Schlendrian 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new situation: a User of de.wiki stated that the picture was Formerly available at DOD'S official server till change Delta' status of classification (now higher). There are no official Delta-images available anymore. How to handle that? --Schlendrian 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The version we have is evidently scanned from a magazine; witness the fold running vertically through the middle of the image. The publicly accessible images at the DVIC are generally sized 640 pixels wide and are original photos that do not have such artefacts. Remains the question why the uploader didn't use the corresponding DOD image then, if it was once available... Note that civilian press also took pictures during that military operation. Lupo 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Cause the picture is evidentely public domain (217.83.35.61 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
and what is the evidence? --ALE! 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A IP keeps deleting the Deletion request, and still states the pictures was also available at osd.dodmedia.mil. I dont see evidences for this, the pictures pretty obviously is a mag-scan, please delete --Schlendrian 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NGC 4038.jpg

Source is probably this site. Certainly not NASA-PD. The policy of this site says: "For publication or display (electronic or otherwise), all images must be credited: „Photo Courtesy of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, La Palma“ unless otherwise noted. We appreciate you send a message to Javier Méndez (ING PR Officer) with all the details of the publication. For slides, prints or other photographic material please use the contact above." I am not sure if usage here is allowed with these restrictions. --Vesta 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Janus moon.jpg, Image:Venus Galileo.jpg

Nominated for deletion because (or similar) "Although this image comes originally from NASA sadly a person that post processed this image (the webmaster of solarviews.com) Calvin J. Hamilton claims own copyright on this image, see http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Janus (all images on NASA pages with such a sepia color are from Calvin J. Hamilton). So I fear that it has to be deleted. I have also created a free alternative out of the raw voyager image and will upload it the next time. Arnomane 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)" -Samulili 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg

No author provided, the license is just an unproven claim.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Was first published without author's name in Poland. Shaqspeare 11:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poland is member of the EU -> 70 years pma. Besides, to prove that a) the picture is really anonymous und b) that it has actually been published first in Poland might be somehow difficult. ;-)
Not in this case. You cannot aply European law to it, it doesn't work backwards - anything published and not marked with ©-sign went into public domain. I don't have to prove anything - we should assume good faith of the uploader. And I didn't say it is anonymous - but it was published without any autorship comment and without ©. Shaqspeare 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author's copyright is independent from the existence of a (c). This picture is copyrighted throughout the European Union due to directives 93/98/EEC and 2001/29/EC which were implemented by Poland. Btw, the polish modernized copyright law of 1994 was retroactive as well as the EU law. Besides, the {{Copyrighted free use}} licensing causes this case to be much more bogus - if the author had released the picture into public domain, he most be known. This is obviously contrary to the "published without author's name" claim. Anyway, this picture cannot be PD.--Wiggum 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But when one didn't put the ©-sign by the photo, we should assume he was willing to put this in PD. E.g. Polish postcards, press photos etc. were often marked "© CAF", "© PAP", "© TASS" etc. So the author had possibility not to put it in public domain. But he did. P.S. I changed the licence to {{PD-PRL}}, which applies here. Shaqspeare 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can just repeat what i said: the moral rights are independent from a (c)-sign. And no, you can't assume that the author was willing to put the picture in the PD when the (c) is missing - the complete opposite applies: the author has to agree to the publication explicitly. I don't have a (c) on any of my private picture but i surely don't want to put them in the PD.--Wiggum 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But AFAIK it is generally treated just the way I described in Poland and wasn't questioned by Polish law practice yet. By the way, it accords not to private pictures, only the pictures that were published. The ©-sign hadn't to be on the picture itself but e.g. beyond it or on the other side of the postcard etc. Shaqspeare 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is practice in poland as you described, it would be a highly questionable practice. Anyway, the picture is protected in all countries - maybe except poland. So it is useless here. It think it's also very unlikely that this is a polish photographers picture as the template states. Imagine an iraqi would be able to took such a picture of US troops...--Wiggum 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't make a sence any more, I think. I agree with Shaqspeare, but I don't know the EU copyright law good enough. Maybe ask some authority? Warsaw Rising Museum? --MStankie 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Image:Michelle Bachelet official photo.jpg

The source provided does allow for free use of its photographs. However, modification of them is not permitted, meaning they aren't quite free enough to be on Commons --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that these types of images can't be used in Commons. And if they can't be used in Commons, can they be used in regular Wikipedia? Cantus 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed". The english Wikipedia also considers such restrictions to make an image non-free. However, if no free alternative can be found you might be able to upload under a claim of fair use (be sure to include a detailed fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in or the image will be deleted). --JeremyA 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg

The original source is http://www.travisruse.com/archives/2005/11/f_train_manhatt_2.php (via en.wikipedia). There is no evidence that the photographer has given permission for the licence used. The photographers website states: "All text and images, unless otherwise noted, are subject to US and international copyright laws and are the property of Travis Ruse. If you'd like to use one of my photographs on a personal website, or for any other non-commercial purpose, please ask first. If you have a commercial interest in any of my images, please contact me to discuss licensing and fees." As we require that commercial use be allowed I think that this image needs deleted unless the photographer marks it as an exception to the copyright notice on his website. --JeremyA 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_subway_riders_with_their_newspapers.jpg, this image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. That's why I have uploaded it here. DeansFA 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message for the editor who originally uploaded it to en.wikipedia as there is no transcript of the email permission anywhere that I can find. --JeremyA 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any news? --ALE! 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:City of Korcula, Island of Korcula, Croatia.jpg

this picture ist stolen, see: http://dalmatia.250x.com/pejzaz.htm --Decius 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Portiques.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Le Havre-Portiques.jpg. Captain Scarlet 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:BajaDream.jpg, Image:P9120019 Peggys Cove sea.jpg, and Image:File cont4518 lang0 1579.jpg

None of the three are PD. All of them have incorrect licensing, and looking at the links provided, it says nothing about them being PD. 68.46.61.88 01:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ngc 6744.jpg

Very probably copyrighted, according the the copyright notice at [12]. The source site given for the image, http://salt.camk.edu.pl/firstlight/, is Polish. Can anyone who dan read Ploish check for a ploicy notice there? ---09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Same problem for Image:47tuc salt.jpg Image:Ngc 6152.jpg, Image:Triffid nebula salt.jpg and Image:Lagoon nebula SALT.jpg. --Vesta 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep User:Polarianin, who uploaded the images, answered on my talk page: "Yes, the free license is granted on the polish site, where it is written that All photos placed on this site can be published without limitations (in polish: Wszystkie zdjęcia zamieszczone na tej stronie można publikować bez ograniczeń.)" --Vesta 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NobelPrizeMedal.jpg

This image appears to be a reduced version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg which is declared fair use. Is there any reason to believe that the Nobel Foundation have released the image of the medal into the public domain? --JeremyA 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image was replaced, in 8jul06, by cutting of Image:Nobel prize medal.jpg; that is PD-Self of Photos of Nobel Prize Medal. Photo taken 2005 by Bob Tubbs. --Chico 21:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the medal design has been the same since the prizes were instituted at the start of the twentieth century it will be out of copyright by now. From the quality of the image I am willing to believe that this is a self-made snapshot. William Avery 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep See here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/stamps/anniversary-press.html William Avery 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
 Delete Sorry, Sweden is in the EU therefore it is Death of author + 70 years, author being Erik Lindberg (1873 - 1966). William Avery 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Many things to delete

There are many files I would like to delete. They are all considered as not immediately useful to Commons. They are all in this category, and most of them are drawings : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HV, but not all of the files (most of them, actually) need to be deleted. Niladmirari 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I will not tag them all in one shot, but the comment will be applicable to all the files that come in this category for the next days.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Farben logo.jpg

logo, not PD --Shizhao 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? I do not know much about this. (Stichwort: Unzureichende Schöpfungehöhe) --ALE! 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Graphical work. Shaqspeare 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no thresold of originality, imho {{PD-ineligible}}.--Wiggum 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the graphic designers work on such symbols really long. To create a good logo is a question of many days or weeks. And it is a well paid job. It would be rather applicable to say the "wikimedia commons"-logo has no thresold of originality. Shaqspeare 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long it takes or how much is paid for the logo doesn't matter. It's only a question of threshold of originality. I don't see that for two letters orbited by a black line. Ok, this point is disscusible, i know. :-)
A short story for free: I remember a recent inquiry on de-Wiki where someone told us that he would be paid for a picture from wikipedia. Funny, isn't it? ;-)--Wiggum 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was not just a funny story. I wanted you to imagine that the graphic design is not just what you think - you said the creator of that did kinda nothing, but to do that nothing is still an intelectual work. To put the two letters of the right typeface in the right way together and to find the right composition for that was IMO much harder than to compose the funny commons logo. Shaqspeare 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep {{PD-ineligible}} Shaqspeare does not understand what copyright is all about. It's exact the same old nonsense he tells us here as the typeright lobby repeats again and again. This stuff does not have and does not deserve copyright protection. What such mad claims always try to hide is the fact that there is a limited protection available under design patent law for these things, for up to around 20 years (depending on country) and if you pay for it properly. 70 years pma for such trivialities would really be outrageous—yet designers for some reason or another seem to be unable to accept this simple fact and arrogate for their three letters and four circles the same protection as a Picasso. No copyright for designs! --Rtc 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Clearly above the threshold of originality. Not one of us would have thought of the same creation in a million years if given just "IG Farben Konzern". -Samulili 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is total nonsense; you do not have any idea what threshold of originality means. Threshold of originality is entirely different for utilitarian things (designs) compared to non-utilitarian things (art). Go read what I wrote and [13] (section 'Design patents and copyrights'). There is limited design patent and trademark protection available for designs, but generally not copyright protection. Please get this simple fact and do not continue to repeat these incorrect design copyright lobby views again and again. --Rtc 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting page. However, at the very top it says "The patent laws of the United States provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." What we are dealing with here is not an article of manufacture. Also, from Commons:Licensing: "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". I would think that in this case Germany is a relevant jurisdiction.
Finally, I would like to say that I regard myself to be a sensible person. If by bolding rude messages you're trying to imply that my skull might be too thick without a proper use of cluebat, you're not helping yourself in convinciong me over. -Samulili 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Germany is the jurisdiction, then things are clear: It's not protected by copyright. Please read de:Schöpfungshöhe. It has the nice example Laufendes Auge which was deemed by the german constitutional court as not protected. If Laufendes Auge is not protected by copyright, this logo is for sure not. Such logos are merely protected by trademark law (Markenrecht), and, sometimes, design patents (Geschmacksmuster). --Rtc 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Historiograf 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK ACK -- Stahlkocher 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept and tagged with {{Logo-Germany}} --ALE! 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MG42.jpg

Image sourced from here. Website displays copyright notice at bottom, but it is not certain that they own the copyright. Image tagged as PD "common property," but definitely does not qualify for such. ArmadniGeneral 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert Einstein.jpg

Image by Yousuf Karsh, which I had uploaded back in 2004. We've discussed this image several times back in 2005; it was kept because I wrongly argued that it was in the public domain because the Library and Archives Canada said so. I failed to notice that this applies to Canada only. The image was first published in Karsh's book Portraits of Greatness, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1959, and Thomas Nelson & Sons, London, 1959, p. 68. (See [14].) Having been simultaneously published in both Canada and the UK and still under copyright in the UK, it is also copyrighted all over the EU, and, even if it should have never been published in the U.S., which is doubtful anyway, still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the copyright restoration of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. Note that Karsh for years maintained two offices, one in Ottawa and one in New York, and was in general rather diligent about registering and renewing his copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office. We had also been told by an anon IP that was later found to resolve to CameraPress in the UK that the image was copyrighted by CameraPress. CameraPress manages Karsh's copyrights in Europe. All evidence points to this image being copyrighted just about anywhere outside of Canada. Therefore, I'm asking to delete this image. (Note that a possible replacement image that is at least {{PD-US-not renewed}} exists at Image:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg.) Lupo 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan symbols

Orphaned and superseded by either Pagan symbol male phallus.svg or Pagan symbol female chalice.svg. --Fibonacci 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert Einstein Swss Patent Office clerk 1905.jpg

This Image copyvio. from NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day. Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (GMU) & Jerry Bonnell (USRA). see About image permissions. and Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg Crop --Shizhao 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the photographer? NASA is certainly not, so they have no rights to the picture. --Fb78 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lucien Chavan (1868-1942), a friend of his when he lived in Berne. When was the image published? If pre-1923, it might be at least {{PD-US}}. If kept, there's a much larger version available at the Historical Museum of Berne. (The red text says that the images were cleared for use in a report on the museum; fo all other uses the permission from the archives listed with the images must be gotten. For our image here, the archive mentioned is the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem. It is unknown whether they really would hold the copyright.) I suggest asking at the first link I've given about the copyright status of this work; it's the web site of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property... I wonder if they got clearance from the Einstein Archive. Lupo 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be PD-US if published in the US pre-1923 (it is pre-1909 if published abroad). Without any evidence to its publication history we should probably delete it. --Fastfission 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this 1909 thing, see en:WP:PD#_note-0. Until now, common practice on (at least the English) Wikipedia was to apply the 1923 cut-off to works published anywhere in the world. If we want to change that, we'll have to re-evaluate and drop quite a lot of images... It appears that the 1909 date applies only to works first published outside of the U.S. without copyright notice, and is based on a court decision in the 9th circuit that is heavily disputed in legal commentaries. Lupo 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 1909 vs 1923 thing is really quite unclear, but it does look a bit dodgy, when the law is disputed, for us to decide to pick the version that is most convenient (even though that seems to be the most widely supported view). I think we really need two templates: Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-pre-1908 and Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-1909-1922 or similar. And whether we should be keeping the second category of images is debatable, but at least this way round it would be easier to sort the images. However, I am not convinced that the 1909 vs 1923 dispute is relevant here because that centers around publication. This image appears to be a private photograph - it has been published at some point, but it's not even clear that the date of publication was prior to 1923. If not, then I think that 70 years pma applies in which case this is still copyright in the United States too. TheGrappler 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to NASA, Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell are not credited with the photograph. They are, instead, presumed to be credited with authoring and editing the textual blurb beneath the photograph. Other photographs on their site, such as this, have a distinct credit line directly below the image. No such line is present on the Albert Einstein image page. Unless NASA somehow failed to get permission to use the image and/or failed to credit the copyright holder and their institution (as they claim they do on their about image permissions page), I think there's a good chance it's in the public domain. Punctured Bicycle 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the assumption I was operating under when I uploaded the picture in question, as listed in my original Public Domain rationale. If the consensus is to delete the image due to possible copyright violations, there is nothing I can do, but please take the time to do a wikipedia useage check and re-upload the image to individual wikipedias where applicable. -Fadookie 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Image:Edmund Dulac - The Emperors New Clothes - procession.jpg

All images of Edmund Dulac (1882-1953) are probably copyright violations. See Category:Edmund Dulac. A pity, they are nice. Elly 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Norden.org and all of the many, many images in Category:Images by the Nordic Council

This is the first time I've ever nominated a licence template as opposed to individual images, so if I'm posting this in the wrong area feel free to bump me off to the correct place.

{{Norden.org}} is a fairly old template, but it appears no-one has actually ever checked on the real terms of the license the site gives. Quoting directly from the English version of the page http://www.norden.org/nordbild/imagedb.asp?lang=6 :

"The photos can be used freely for editorial but not commercial use provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org)."

This seems to me to be a clear noncommercial licence, and images released under the licence don't really belong on Commons. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they changed their license conditions somewhere in 2005, according to the internet archive it was not restricted in February 2005. See [16]

I am the uploader of many of these photos, and I am 100 % sure that the noncommercial clause was not there when I uploaded them (November 2005). But the licensing terms do not mention a right to make derivative works, maybe we have to delete them because of this? --Kjetil_r 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic.

Restored by User:Erin Silversmith. — Erin (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It is a common misconception that journalistic licenses are free; they are not. See large list of such templates requested for deletion below. Let's get rid of them now. Don't use material from sites that do not explicitly grant an a) perpetual, irrevocable license, which permits b) commercial use and c) derivative work. --Rtc 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:800px-German Troops In Warsaw.jpg

This image was published 1940 in the book "Die Soldaten des Führers im Felde". The photo was taken by "Hugo Jäger". I do not know when he died but anyway, 70 years after the first publication would be in 2011. And therefore the image chan not be in the public domain. --ALE! 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • on the website [17] (search identifier 559369),"unrestricted" use of the document is allowed. I don't know what that means. Also, when you nominate an image for deletion, please add the {{deletion request}} and notify the user. CyrilB 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This means that NARA ignores author rights... Please see also the "Bilder von Adolf Hitler" section above where the trustability of Nara et.al. is discussed. In this case it's clear (imho, as everytime ;-) - we have an individual author so 70 years pma rule applies. As the picture cannot be taken before September 1939 the copyright is not yet expired.--Wiggum 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natürlich löschen! 217.88.156.78 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Image:T-6 Texan.jpg

Diese Bild ist eine geschützte Kopie von dieser Seite: [18] Last Update: 01 Apr 05 copyrighted 1989 August Brunsman, und wurde mit falschen PD Angaben versehen. --217.116.12.196 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte mal Brille aufsetzen und nochmals lesen: Drawing of the Wright brothers copyrighted 1989 August Brunsman. Betrift also nur Zeichnungen des Wright Flyers. --Denniss 01:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Irrelevant opinions, see #1 and #2 --Denniss 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The license template says This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.. The security notice of the link says Information presented on The ASC History Office website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Not a word about a) U.S. Air Force Airmen b) U.S. federal government and c) public domain. While credits are requested it is obvious that the picture is not PD.--Wiggum 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not noted as being copyrighted. If that is so and the main notice on the site says that it is public information then the photo is public domain. They do not demand a credit since they can't do that with public domain information. They merely request a credit. David Newton 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright of the picture does not depend on a "copyright notice" or whatever. The main site notice doesn't say a word about public domain. It says that the picture can be copied and distributed - it says nothing about modification or commercerial use. If it were in the public domain such usage restrictions would be crap. The point is the following: there is no copyright notice with the picture (author, date of creation...), the copyright notice of the main page is a) unclear and b) not very trustworthy and last but not least i can't see how our license template should fit to the site notice. We should respect the authors moral (and maybe commercial) rights - if we can't assure that the picture is PD we cannot use ist. Please see Image:MerkelBushWashington1.jpg for a properly licensend picture - there is name und role of the author, the source and a appropriate license template.--Wiggum 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This work is from a US Government site. With the US Government unless there is an indication otherwise it is fair to assume that the work is by the US Government and thus free from copyright. There is no indication otherwise here that the image is anything but that taken by a US Government employee. You are being ridiculous in this case. If the labelling is faulty then liability lies with the US Government, not with Wikipedia. There are some US Government sites which say that information contained on that site is not to be copied without permission as it comes from an external source. This is not one of those sites.
You may have a point about the licence template on Wikisource being overly specific in claiming that a USAF person took the photograph. However that does not alter the fact that it is public domain image by all indications that I can see and that deleting it would ridiculous. David Newton 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly PD, as they say that "Information presented on The ASC History Office website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." This image comes from an ASC History Office publication entitled "Remarkable Journey", edited by Diana Good Cornelisse of the ASC history Office. Clearly falls under a variant of {{PD-USGov}}. Besides, who else but a fellow USAF pilot could have taken this picture? Isn't that Wright Field visible on the ground? Lupo 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it shows an USAF Aircraft it is likely that it has been photographed by another USAF pilot. I'm not very happy with accepting such kind of probability. Commons should be a reliable source for free content and not a reliable source for probably free content. As you will see with examples like Image:800px-German Troops In Warsaw.jpg (some sections above) the governmental sites are not as trustworthy as they should be. It might be somehow paradoxical but to assure that a picure is in the Public Domain we need the name, date of death or the role of the author. Few exceptions (such as the 100 years rule) should be defined by policy.--Wiggum 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is a USAF site, claiming that an image showing a USAF aircraft in flight, likely to have been photographed by a USAF pilot, and published in a USAF book written by a USAF employee was in the public domain. It's not that they made a PD claim on some image that evidently must have come from some other source. Lupo 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lupo Public Domain Jaranda wat's sup 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license template says: The ASC History Office website is provided as a public service by the ASC History Office. [19] under Point 6. Unauthorized attempts to deny service, upload information, change information, or to attempt to access a non-public site from this service are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under Title 18 of the U.S. Code to include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infra-structure Protection Act. --217.116.12.196 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How should this be related to the image license ? --Denniss 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20050917dinosaur04pano.jpg

The main subject of this photograph is a sculpture in copyright in the US. The photograph itself is therefore a derivative work and cannot be given a Commons licence without permission of the copyright holders in the original work. See Commons:Derivative works. William Avery 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Image:Barajas overview1.jpg

Diese Luftbild hat keine Angaben wer der Fotograf war und da es sich um mititärisches Spergebiet handelt fehlt auch die Freigabe der Luftbildaufnahme nach spanischem Recht. --Buscador 02:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closer indication of the photographer are missing, who became admission in a military area, made and the release is missing --Buscador 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Tussauds#Wax

Image:Marie Tussaud.jpg Image:DIE BEATLES.JPG Image:BEYONCE.JPG Image:David Bowie at Madame Tussaud.jpg Image:SV400030.JPG Image:Samuel l jackson waxstatue.jpg Image:Mr T.jpg Image:Timothy Dalton as James Bond.jpg Image:Telly Savalas.jpg Image:Jane Seymour.jpg Image:Vincent van Gogh Wax Sculpture.jpg Image:Dalai Lama Wax.jpg Image:Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne Wax.jpg Image:Andrew Sachs.jpg Image:Hitchcock Tussaud.jpg Image:Grace Jones.jpg Image:Charles Dance.jpg Image:Honecker Wachs1.jpg Image:Hussein Schroeder Howard Chirac.jpg

...Nicht erlaubt ist außerdem die Veröffentlichung von Fotos, auf denen Kunstwerke zu sehen sind, die noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Diese Rechte verfallen jedoch 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Künstlers (genauer: am 1. Januar des Jahres, das auf den 70. Todestag folgt, also für 1936 gestorbene Künstler am 1. Januar 2007).

Copyright infringement, because there is no permission of the sculptor - sculptures are copyrighted! --Tout (Diskussion) 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, §62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, allows to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in public places or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. This basically applies to three-dimensional works only; it does not apply to two-dimensional works such as e.g. murals. Remains the question whether Tussaud's is a "premise open to the public"... Lupo 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist - das sollte Lupo besser als alle anderen wissen - ganz und gar irrelevant, was im UK gilt. Die EU kennt keine solche Ausnahme (schon gar nicht DE), also delete --Historiograf 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - in the same way like any Museum or church when there is actually no religious service and no "Photography prohibited"-Sign - and you have lots of Images, that are taken in Museums. --Kathe 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete These wax figures are copyrighted sculptures, not permanently installed, not in a public place. Commons:Derivative works applies. --Fb78 06:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Rtc 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Derivative works and really of very little wikimedia/encyclopaedic value. William Avery 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Image:Cyfac Gothica bike.JPEG

REASON (This image is likely under copyright by VeloEuropa, Inc. See http://www.veloeuropa.com/.) --Mindfrieze 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tour de france 2005 21st stage sm 01.jpg

REASON: See discussion. Not GFDL but CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 --Jan Arkesteijn 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, it looks like the author would be willing to license it differently. Contact him again and point out that while the GFDL does allow commercial uses of the photo, such commercial stand-alone use of the image is unlikely to occur because the full text of the GFDL must be distributed with any re-publication. Lupo 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before me he sent me the mail which is copied to the discussion page, he wrote me this mail which seems clear to me: 

"Hi -  I am unwilling to make my photo freely available for commercial
purposes and prefer to maintain the NonCommercial-ShareAlike  protection.
Sorry for the conflict -
Frank

I also asked him to remove the other images he mentioned on en.wikipedia himself. I don't have an account there, and he uploaded the images himself. Jan Arkesteijn 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's worth a try. I've contacted him over at his talk page at the English Wikipedia. If he still wants the images gone, it's ok by me, but maybe the restrictions built into the GFDL are good enough for him. Lupo 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RERParisVision2025.png

REASON: Includes logo of RATP which is copyrighted -- ♦ Pabix ℹ 10:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos are almost never copyrighted. They are protected by trademark law. --Rtc 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You can stop the deletion request. I've removed the RATP logo now.... --Chumwa 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg

For the Pakistan-PD licensing tag to be effective, Ali Bhutto would have to be at most 28 years old when the image was taken. Also see en:User talk:Chatni#Image Tagging Image:BhuttoZ.jpg --Phrood 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F1_template.gif

F1 Corporate Logo featured in image which is a Copyvio as it is a registered trademark (see [21]) --Alexj2002 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

Image:Microkini.jpg

No metadata. Image is low resolution. Uploader has only one upload and image is looks professional.Geni 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author has already provided (his) pictures to others
  • Author has also same nickname on Yahoo
  • It's not unlikely, that Microkitten is willing to license some pictures for free
So, then we have to check, if the Uploader is really that person. So the pro-deleters should contact Microkitten directly, if in doubt. -- Test-tools 08:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Circuitmap.png

It has been superseded by the SVG Image:US Court of Appeals and District Court map.svg, created from the same PDF source. I've already orphaned the image; the uploader has no page on Commons. -- Tintazul 09:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kanji_satori.jpg

This is an ugly scan of a bit of Japanese written with a marker pen. Orphaned and horrible. — Erin (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Krischbluetenfest-Hamburg.jpg

edited version of Image:Kirschbluetenfest Hamburg.png (water mark deleted). --GeorgHH 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: why is the edited image a PNG? This sort of image should be stored in JPG-format I think. PNG is now 350 kb instead of 150 kb for the JPG. Furthermore I'm curious if there is a policy that says watermarks shouldn't be on pictures. NielsF 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:COA Danish Royal Family Official.png

The current form of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was created in 1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coa royal denmark.png

This version of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was used circa 1944-1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Denmark coa official.png

Much as I hate listing this image, the current version of the Danish national coat of arms was created in 1986, so too new and not public domain (alas). Delete Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

Image:Leuenberger.jpg

I think this image shouldn't be under "PD-Switzerland-photo" but not sure, could someone checked it, please? Anna 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna, if you click on the mentioned source of the picture, you can read: «Copyright, Swiss federal authorities, 2005. Information on the federal authorities' websites is accessible to the public. Downloading or copying of texts, illustrations, photos or any other data does not entail any transfer of rights on the content. Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the Federal authorities' websites are the exclusive property of the federal authorities or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder. Federal Chancellery: webmaster@admin.ch» so, please just ask at the Federal Chanellery. I am sure, that they will send you a picture of every of the seven members of the Swiss gvernement for the commons CC-BY or other wiki-compatible license! --Eruedin 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} is a next to useless template. Based on a decision by the Swiss Supreme Court in one case some people like to argue that simple press conference shots such as this one were PD in Switzerland. Even if that might be so, it is a personal interpretation only, not backed by any reputable legal opinions, and the decision itself was rather heavily criticized. Furthermore, even if such photos might be PD in Switzerland, they'd be PD in Switzerland only. Such images do pass the threshold of originality in many other countries, the EU and the U.S. included. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. We even deleted for that reason the very image this whole case was about, namely Image:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg! That said, contacting the Federal Chancellery and asking for PD or GFDL images of all seven Bundesräte indeed is a good idea. Lupo 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Until appropriate consent is given by the Swiss government. Thereby, we could upload other images from the federal council without hinderance. Booksworm 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lumumba2.jpg

A drawing of Patrice Lumumba, PM of Congo 1960-1961. Uploader tagged this drawing from Congo's Mission to the UN as GFDL, although I can't find any mention of licensing there. Thuresson 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the MONUC about the source of the picture (on their homepage). I will tell you the answer as soon as they answer me. --Eruedin 13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any answer? If not, we should delete the image soon. --ALE! 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kasavubu.jpg and Image:Pres. Joseph Kasa vubu.jpg

These are identical photos of Congo politician Joseph Kasa Vubu (1917-1969). The only source is English Wikipedia from where it has been deleted following a nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images (log). Thuresson 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is only on the commons today. I couldnt find it on other places in the internet with google or alltheweb. So it's probably not stolen from an onther website. Who was the original uploader to the en:wiki? Only he could help. --Eruedin 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader to en: was Raju1. Thuresson 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete delete in case of doubt. Siebrand 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zeros Deusto.JPG

Looks like derivative work to me, but I'm ont an expert in manga, so if someone can confirm, I'd appreciate CyrilB 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reloading Panzerschreck.jpg

As far as I can tell, this image has neither adequate source information or an acceptable copyright status. The uploader states that this is an inartistic picture under Commons:Licensing#Finland, and as such, the copyright expired sometime in the 1990s, and since it's in the public domain, it doesn't need detailed source information. I don't agree with any of it.

The uploader has been notified on the English Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the photographer is unknown, then how can one be sure that the Finnish copyright law applies and not some other.
The uploader claims that it is a photograph of Finnish soldiers during World War II. --Carnildo 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

Image:Potsdamerplatz1.jpg

it is said that the image was taken in 1933 which is not old enough if the author is not known. and GPL it's surely not. --BLueFiSH ✉ 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panoz emblem.jpg

It's a photo of a car logo-thing. Seems like too close a crop and too simple a shot to gain any new copyright. -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:NC 1811 Shield.PNG and Image:NC 1832 Shield.PNG

This style of sign is not used for four-digit routes. [22] shows the three styles of signs that are used. --SPUI 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both deleted --ALE! 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Image:Logo 700 lat Iławy.svg

it is taged with PD-Polishsymbol .. just IMO it is not a offical govermental symbol ...Sicherlich Post 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dvorak keyboard fi.png

REASON: Appears to be a screenshot from MacOS "Keyboard Viewer" app (or older "Key Caps"). Not free. --Blahedo 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don't see any copyrightable GUI elements or icons. It would be nice to have better images for the keyboard layouts, though. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I don't buy that argument — if I were to write a program that generated images such as these, I expect Apple would have a case against me. --StuartBrady 13:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it to be really copyrightable. I'd ask for creating SVG versions from the images and then deleting them Platonides 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep not copyrighted. --Rtc 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Image:Area 51.jpg

The uploader falsely claims this image is a public domain NASA Landsat image (collected using NASA World Wind), but the resolution is many times better than Landsat's. It's clearly copyrighted DigitalGlobe satellite imagery collected using Google Earth (the same image is available, without the perspective added with google earth, at this google maps link. Compare this image to the actual Landsat image of the same location, Image:Wfm area 51 landsat geocover 2000.jpg. The terms of this commercial image's copyright are clearly entirely incompatible with Commons' policy. -- Finlay McWalter 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Francisco Chinatown Snoopy.jpg

  •  DeleteThis is a derivative work that violates the Peanuts copyright. Angr 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete See above. Siebrand 13:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I loaded the image up here at commons, I did so assuming the picture falls under de:Panoramafreiheit as it is known in German law. In short this says, that a (copyrighted) work of art, when permanently placed in a public place - or, as in this case, applied to a building - may be reproduced by taking a picture of this public place or building. If this does not apply to US law, and thus to commons, I undertsand that the image will have to be deleted. --Tsui 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure even Panoramafreiheit would apply. It's an advertisement and will only stay painted on the side of the building as long as the advertiser has paid for it. Eventually it will be painted over by a different advertisement, so it's not really permanently there at all. Angr 09:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing made by humans (or at all) is really permanent ;-) I don't know how "permanent" is defined by law (Panaramafreiheit). But in the end it doesn't matter - if there is serious reason to believe that the image violates copyright, it should be deleted. --Tsui 08:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Signs in Category:Road signs of Poland

have been superseded by SVGs. SVGs are 100% compatible with the polish highway code.

--MStankie 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If not all instances have been replaced, please add the {superseded} tag to all images involved. These image are not tagged, so with provided information I say: keep. Siebrand 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now all images are orphan and marked with {Vector version available} --jed 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Bricklin Stamp.jpg

Looks like incorrect PD tag using. --Panther 09:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (canadian stamps are PD after 50 years, this one is from 1996) --ALE! 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Savon vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Savonia coat of arms.svg. --Hautala 10:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep These images differ. Placement of the 'bubbles' is very different. Siebrand 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The .svg image is faulty. Look at the fastening of the string at each end of the bow. --Juiced lemon 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Heraldically identical --Tomia 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pudasjärvi vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Pudasjarvi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Images differ a lot in colour and both differ from a possible source image on http://www.pudasjarvi.fi/. Please clear this up, correct in the SVG and I'm all for deletion of the old version. Siebrand 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heraldically all these three are identical. --Hautala 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The .svg image use a greenish yellow shade (#e3dd00) which is very far from the gold color as expected : hideous. --Juiced lemon 09:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tarłów herb.png

This file is unused and has very bad quality. There is vector version of this image available. Jakub Hałun 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The PNG is low-quality and the SVG is pretty good quality. Heraldic "gules" does not have a pantone color. AnonMoos 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crayfish-Astacus astacusP1002890.JPG

URL mentioned on the image twice, almost impossible to remove. Really ugly. Siebrand 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomium

See the notice on Category:Atomium. Because I'm not sure how far this notice goes, I'm listing it here instead of speedying. If anyone can point to older discussions that clear up the situation, I'd be much obliged NielsF 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Image:Members of the Maquis in La Tresorerie.jpg

No reason given why this should be considered PD, despite the usual silly "PD according to en.wikipedia", where there's no reason given either (as with most pictures there). --AndreasPraefcke 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture likely is in the Public Domain in Canada only. The template used was blatantly wrong. Also the Library and Archives Canada does not make official confirmations. If you use their pictures, you do so at your own risk. --Rtc 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stereolepis gigas1.jpg

The image clearly shows copyright by Mark Conlin. --Humus sapiens 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to the contact person at http://www.markconlin.com/ I will let you know if he returns the e-mail. 24.196.67.58 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster

REASON: Commons is not a dictionnary: this page is a wrong track (search “cluster”). --Juiced lemon 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it's a "wrong track"? Please explain. There are images, they look like clusters to me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I let the images because they show a funny likeness. The problem here is the english slant of the page : when you translate “cluster” in other languages, you must choose between numberous words, according to the subject. That's the reason why I said it is a "wrong track" : because you must do a thematic search.
English-speaking people will find easily the disambiguation page en:cluster. --Juiced lemon 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why not just improve it, or else convert it to a disambig page? pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we can do a page about quantities of anything File:Many coins.jpg . But is it useful ? Is “cluster” a good title ?
A disambiguation page about a common word is for english-speaking people only. --Juiced lemon 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So rename it to Star cluster? Anyone can do a page move, remember.
Your statement that a dab page is for English-speakers only is odd. Of course it is. But there's nothing stopping us having dab pages in other languages too. I don't see how this is an English bias thing... pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not yet accustomed to the singular or plural uses. Commons has a Star clusters category, but no page with this title. --Juiced lemon 07:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effetto fotoelettrico

REASON: inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons (now, the image is categorized). I have transfered the text here. --Juiced lemon 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Histamenon nomisma-Constantine VIII-sb1776.jpg

copyright violation (see discussion)

Well, on the discussion page it says:
"8. All software on the Site is the property of CNG or its software suppliers and is protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws and international conventions. The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited."
They can prohibit what they want, an antique coin does not have a copyright. A photograph of an antique coin in my opinion does not fulfill the criteria of artistic threshold. (It is a simple photo of a coin.)
Therfore I vote  Keep and the photos should be tagged with {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}} or maybe {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what about the rights of the photographer? 128.40.184.108 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rastop (and Image:John1234.jpg)

advertisement for probably nonfamous "DJ" --Ahellwig 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:KEVIN COSTNER.jpg

While this image appears on a U.S. Government website, it provides an image credit stating that it is not a work of the U.S. government, but is derived from a poster from the movie Wyatt Earp (1994). No mention of a release is made. --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete There is a big misconception among Wikipedians that everything that appears on US Government websites is public domain. In this case it's a picture from an exhibition held in 2003 at the Hoover Archives, full of film posters and studio pictures of various Hollywood cowboys. Obviously those pictures are not "the work of the United States Federal Government" and the copyright remains with the studios. On the Hoover Archives website they have also pictures from an exhibition about Bob Hope. In that case they state that the exhibition material was on loan from Hope Enterprises Inc, (the estate of Bob Hope, I assume), but there agin they don't clearly say that the material is copyrighted, which it clearly is. Thomas Blomberg 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Wsiegmund 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete no government work --ALE! 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! 22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NEUTEFFECT2.jpg

User's repeat upload of image previously deleted (multiple times) as a copyvio of Alexa datum. - Amgine 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; How is this useful to any project? 70.48.204.222 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as above --Astrokey44 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  'Keep'KeepThe copyvio reason is bogus so this DR must be refused if the DR process has any integrity.
  • If someone wishes to place a deletion request based upon point or "not useful" please do so and I will respond more fully at that time; but,imo, "not useful" is quite subjective and could be used for any type of censorship and this image does not address any wikinews' policies at all so does not fit into the point parameters. Unfortunately the objections Platonides brings to this do not assume good faith and I do not think that is constructive.Neutralizer 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria pittori Francia

REASON: duplicate of Jacques-Louis David and Category:Jacques-Louis David. --Juiced lemon 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria pittori Italia

REASON: duplicate of Leonardo da Vinci and Category:Leonardo da Vinci. --Juiced lemon 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dasyurus geoffroii.jpg & Image:Bettongia penicillata.jpg

I am the uploader. Photo taken in Melbourne Museum without authorization. Sorry! Nezumidumousseau 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a dissected animal. Who whould be carrying the ©? Platonides 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course and it is now an artefact © Melbourne Museum Nezumidumousseau 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All pictures of DKM Bismarck

This deletion request concerns all pictures listed at Battleship Bismarck except the Model (Image:Bundeswehrmuseum Dresden 13.jpg). This page contains three sections:

Pictures in the section "Construction" are taken from the U.S. Naval Historical Center where no copyright information is provided.

The pictures in section "Bismarck's Atlantic Sortie, May 1941" are obviously photographed from the convoying ship "Prinz Eugen" (see also the U.S: Naval Historical Center site). Therefore it's clear they are not PD and particularly not made by U.S. Navy officers.

The section "Other Images" contains further pictures from the U.S. Naval Historical Center website without copyright information.

I think it is clear that not a single of these pictures is made by US officials so they all have to be deleted. I do not tag all pictures as this would be a work of some hours.--Wiggum 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the pictures in there seems to be shot by germans, some even from other german warships. Source as provided is Naval Historical Center, but no photographer is specified, some are even marked Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. I did not put a deletion warning in each pic but informed the two uploaders --Schlendrian 11:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, didn't see this section, thanks for moving my text in here --Schlendrian 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Some of these pictures might have been taken by spies, we don't know, but for sure, most of them were taken by German sea men. The big point is that the pictures were seized during the war by the U.S. Government/Navy which placed them in the PD. I'm not lawyer (who is, here ?), but I think that because of the war and as seized material, the original author lost its rights.
Anyway, the purpose of Wiki Commons is not to discuss the validity of the licenses of the Naval Historical Center's site, that's their problem and any claim of an author should be posted there as they are the source of the files : we only reproduce here these pictures as « authorized material ». If anybody here doesn't agree with the license under which some pictures are placed, I invite them to write to the NHC and expose their claims. Until further notice, these pictures are still in PD (and the fact that they are available under PD since many years seems that I'm right).
More : if some people here want to discuss the validity of the material of each governmental site, well, I wish them good luck. But please, make your claims there, not here. Sting 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Only the author can release his pictures into the PD. It doesn't matter if they were seized by the US Government. According to German and European copyright laws, they are still copyrighted until 70 years after the photographer's death. --88.134.45.6 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not lawyer and know nothing about the history of these pictures, as we. Commons is based in the USA and because of this, follows the US laws (like the fair use used in the Wikipedias, which doesn't exist in many countries but is used in the WP of these language). I told it : the purpose on Commons is not to doubt of governmental sources but to check if the uploaded material is under a license (in the source, whatever it is) compliant with the ones in Commons. Sting 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
read en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and en:Copyright Term Extension Act then try again.--Wiggum 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what ?!? If you don't agree that these images are under PD, write to the NHC (but I understand that it's easier to make your claims here). What I see is that Commons is clear : it only reproduces pictures under the same free license as the original source of the files, I mean the owner of the pictures. If the NHC is in the illegality, some lawyer will open a process against them and make them change the license of all these pictures and of course, we will follow. But again, and until further notice, they are under PD. It is not to us to say black where an original source says white or doubt of the legitimacy of the possession of photo negatives by a governmental organization. I think that's far from our purpose here in Wikipedia. Sting 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I can take any picture I want and pretend that it is PD, and therefore everybody is allowed to use it freely until the copyright holder notices and sues me? I don't think so.
It's clearly a copyvio, regardless what the NHC pretends and whether they are sued or not. We know that it is not PD so we have to delete it to prevent further copyright violations. --88.134.45.6 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I wrote. I'm talking about an original source, not one of these sites that copy data (picture, sound, movie, text, etc.) from an other site or book without authorization and/or place this material under a fake license : NHC owns the negative of these photos and only NHC can tell what license can be put on them. Further more, we don't know if an agreement was made between the photographers and the Navy. For example, a photographer can sell a picture to an organism : he still remains the author of the artwork but looses his rights which are now owned by that organism. And they will make what they want with this picture (depending on the contract). Sting 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does "original source" mean? The NHC hasn't made the pictures and by far not a US Navy Seaman as the license tags claim. Instead we can read at the NHC site: Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. NHC may own the pictures but only the author can determine if they can be published. He doesn't "loose" anything. Further reading: en:Moral rights. It is obvious that NHC is errant about PD status in this case - they even say it (see the quotation)! Relying on the unspecific "To the best of our knowledge..." would not be good faith it would just be ignorant.--Wiggum 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By original source of a photo, I mean a source which owns the negative and what is on your screen was directly made from this negative. Other sites which would propose the same picture will display a copy of that original source or a scan of a reproduction.
About the license tag of the pictures of the NHC, I created in June a new tag for that purpose, because many photos weren't taken by US sailors (like the ones of the Bismarck, but there are many others) and the original tag didn't fit well in that case. I started to modify the pages with this tag but there are still many to modify. Be patient.
« He doesn't "loose" anything » : you're wrong. Depending on the contract between the photographer and the third party, he can sell (or even give) his rights for a specific use, a period, a number of copies, etc. These limits may drastically change from one contract to another and the new owner of the picture may (or not) have large possibilities of use. The author will continue to own the moral rights which, as it is said in the page, apply to the integrity of the artwork. About the use, the owner of the copyright (= the third party) will be the only one to decide (in the limits of its contract).
In fact and to tell the truth, your problem is not about the fact that these photos are placed in PD, but about the doubt you have to know if the possession of these negatives by the NHC is legal. Unfortunately for you, like I wrote it earlier, this is a question far beyond the possibilities of Commons. Because nobody here knows the history of these photos, the only ones who could give a response would be : #1 the authors ; #2 the NHC.
Until now, you didn't give one information to support your supposition that the NHC isn't the legal owner of these negatives and that they don't have the right to put them in PD. Sting 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS : You misunderstand the meanings of moral rights and copyright holder. If the first always belongs to the author, the second can be sold or given.
I think we talk at cross-purposes somehow. I'll condense it: Owning the negatives means nothing in the first place (I tried to point this out with the hint to moral rights). You said yourself "Depending on the contract [...]" which is right - there might be a contract which expands the exploitation rights of NHC so far that they can put the pictures into PD. The point is there is no indication that such a contract exists. The wording "to the best of our knowledge" rather indicates quit the contrary.--Wiggum 10:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiggum, you make me laugh. Have you ever seen, even one time, a copyright holder furnishing the whole contract with a copy of an artwork put online ? But you want the NHC to do so. And yes, being in possession of a negative means everything, because there is a reason if the photographer gave this negative, and he gave it only with associated rights.
Strange in fact that here are only pointed the photos of the Bismarck. I understand that you, as German, are concerned with that, but if we follow your suppositions, hundreds (thousands ?) of images should be deleted because the copyright holder doesn't furnish a copy of the contract online, text that you will never find anywhere. Sting 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to hear that i bring some humor into your life ;-) Seriously, i see your point but i think your premise is wrong. You can't know (imho) under what circumstances these pictures came to NHC. At first i found no indication that they really possess the negatives, but assume they do. Maybe there was a contract, maybe the photographer said "Use it for educational purpose", maybe a soldier just found them in an abandoned office. We don't know it. The assumption that no one will give away the negatives with restricted exploitation rights is a convienient one but not necessary correct. For example, a thief who has stolen pictures doesn't obtain any exploitation rights. Furthermore i do not request NHC or someone else to put there contracts online that would be ridiculous. I just request a comprehensible reason why a picture should be PD. Such reaons can be: Author dead for more than 70 years, obviously, Pictures of US forces with "made by US federal employee" claim or just something like "The photographer XYZ allowed us to publish the pictures in PD. Compared to such statements "To the best of out knowledge" is not a reason, only an assumption. That i put the Bismarck pictures to test is only coincident because the article of the Bismarck was in the review shortly before. Please witness also the section of the Adolf Hitler pictures above.--Wiggum 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It's blatant nonsense that full copyright transfer ever occurs implicitly, for example by handing over negatives. There's only one notable exception from this: Corporate copyright (automatic copyright transfer from employee to employer). If the NHC only possesses the negatives but not a copyright transfer agreement, signed by the actual author, it does not have any right whatsoever to release these pictures into the public domain, it does not even have the right make and distribute copies of the negatives! There is no difference between copying an 'original source' and copying data (picture, sound, movie, text, etc.) from another site or book without authorization. So the question is not if the NHC is the legal owner of the negatives, the question is if the NHC has a signed copyright transfer agreement. I don't see any indication for this, and it would clearly be against their interests then to release them into public domain. The bottom line is that the licensing templates "This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain" are factually incorrect in any case. --Rtc 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rtc, you're too much : after I indicate the existence of Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC, you put a deletion request on that license template and come here talk about the old Navy tag that was used wrongly on the NHC images.
Of course that a transfer of negatives implicates a transfer of copyright, otherwise the photos would be useless and that would be silly : no organism would accept a photo if they can't use it. Here is the big difference between an original source and a mirror site. The NHC didn't find these films on the ground, they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms. You want to see that contract of the NHC, despite the fact that you will never find it neither in a book, nor in sites in all other cases. You suppose that because NHC didn't put online the contract (nobody do it) they aren't the copyright owners, but there is no information that they don't have it. Suppositions, suppositions… Sting 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The NHC didn't find these films on the ground, they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms." How do you know that the author himself gave them to the museum? Above you said "The big point is that the pictures were seized during the war by the U.S. Government/Navy which placed them in the PD.". So a) we don't know how the museum acquired the pictures and b) we don't know under what conditions they acquired them. If the author himself gave them to the museum (which we don't know), it doesn't mean that he allows everyone to use them for every purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. --88.134.45.6 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms" There is no indication for that and then they'd not release them with "to the best of our knowledge". And, as the IP correcty said, it contradicts what you told us earlier (which casts doubt on your argumentation, you are just making arbitrary claims just to keep the pictures here). I can always make such claims, they can't be refuted even if they were false. I suppose the opposite as long as I don't see a proof. It's that easy. My supposition is more sane and probably reflects truth; in contrast to yours it can easily be refuted if you show only one real indication. We assume bad faith when it comes to copyright, and those who want to keep have to give the arguments, not the other way around. --Rtc 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a supposition about the way they obtained these pictures, like all you are making here, and all this in fact doesn't matter in the argumentation. The point is to know if the NHC is in the legal possession of these films and with this, if they are the copyright holders. Usually in that case contributors ask confirmation to the source. It's sad that you didn't start with that procedure.
Find illegal and copyrighted material in second hand sites is unfortunately common, but I think really hard to believe that an official governmental site will risk a procedure without having a very good knowledge of the material they are displaying.
You don't accept that an American organism can hold the copyright of German pictures and will doubt whatever evidence may be shown. As nothing will change your mind, I don't see the need for further explanation. Sting 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept quickly and change my mind if sufficient proof would be given. There is no proof, only speculations on your part. Did you write them a mail and tell them about the doubts we have and ask for clarification? Obviously not, since it would refute your position. Nobody can be trusted, not even 'official governmental site'. It's a common misconception that alleged authorities will not make mistakes. --Rtc 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These Pictures were "Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen...". the Naval Historical Center don't even know who the Authors are, otherwise they would not have needet a "...identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970." And this one http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h85000/h85749.jpg] is by expicite information of the Naval Historical Center a copy out of a spanish journal, no negative, no handed over, no agreement, no Author known! Why should we keep good faith if they make such mistakes?-WerWil 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human female anus.jpeg

The image was originally uploaded on the english Wikipedia by a new user whose only contributions was to upload and add the picture to an article. It was deleted with the comment "uploaded by vandal", and as there were quite some vandals who did exactly that on the english Wikipedia at that time, I think this is true. So I don't believe that this is a GFDL image, and it should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This image has been accepted on en.Wikipedia for quite some time. We will probably never know whether it is truly GDFL or not. Should be assume good faith? I don't know. How about keeping it for now, and deleting it when we get an unambiguously free image? — Erin (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently two pictures on en:Anus, and the second one does seem to be really free. I think no one noticed that a copy of a deleted image still existed, and I very much doubt that the image really is GFDL. --Conti|✉ 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assume good faith doesn't require us to hold an irrational belief that all people are competent. Please don't gunk up commons with questionable images. --Gmaxwell 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not clearly free content. --Gmaxwell 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian bills, 1992

This page has little value. There is already a category for this (Category:Bills of Belarus, 1992). The description of the image has been copied or is already on the image page. --Chochopk 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Lots of pictures (again)

Months ago I started the discussion Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates#List of templates in question (Moved here from Commons:Deletion requests). Template:Agência Brasil has been resolved, they adopted a clear Creative Commons statement on their website. That's great and was done very well. There are dozens of probably nonderivative and/or noncommercial licenses left however, including such blatantly policy breaking ones such as

  • Template:OAS: "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS."[25]
  • Template:RIGIS: "Prohibited Use -- Unauthorized Distribution. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of RIGIS digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of the Licensor."[26]

These have constantly been ignored and now silently been moved to the archive. I think there has been enough time now to resolve the situation and show ANY progess for the rest of these templates, so I request again to delete the images associated with these templates (except those tagged Template:Agência Brasil). --Rtc 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FakeNES Screenshot.png

Screenshot containing, among other things, the logo of en:Konami. I doubt that is free. --Lhademmor 09:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be possible to find some homebrew or demoscene NES ROM and screenshot that to replace this image. Does anything here look good? (I don't have an emulator at the moment to do it myself.) Grendelkhan 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UK-photo-pre-1945

The tag is nonsense and misleading: Files created prior to 1945 are only in the public domain in the UK if they are in any other EEA country as well, that is 70 years after the death of the author for the most part.

--Wikipeder 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and all tagged pictures as well. Even the link in the template clearly says: "However, if such a photograph was protected on 1 July 1995 in another European Economic Area (EEA) state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights, copyright would have been revived from 1 January 1996 to the end of the term applying to photographs taken on or after 1 January 1996."--Wiggum 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, it does say that right in the template. So why blanket tag them all? - Themadchopper 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there are no pictures which are free under this license exclusively. Either they are old enough (70 years pma/older than 100 years) or they are not PD. That's it. Please witness that most tagged images are WWII-pics which were protected before 1945 in European Union states, therefore they are protected today.--Wiggum 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Haapaveden vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Haapavesi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The .svg image does not respect the original colors (additional colors : “darkgolden rod” and “dimgray”, which do not exist in heraldry !!). --Juiced lemon 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think my drawing matches better finnish description, png misses golden pins. It also matches better for kunnat.net version: http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;102942;486;84531;84541 --Tomia 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your version differs from the kunnet.net version :
  1. the axe of the wheel is azur (silver)
  2. the leaves nervures have 2 side branches (4 side branches).
I notice also that, in the previous version of the image (png), the nervures were black, different on each leaf. --Juiced lemon 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG maps of Massachusetts

PNG maps, superseded by their SVG versions. I used CheckUsage to replace them with SVG versions on all projects using them. Grendelkhan 15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More; these are old PNG "doton" versions replaced by maps showing the actual town divisions. grendel|khan 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MA_map_highlighting_New_Bedford.png

Out of place with the rest of the MA town maps, is superseded by Image:New Bedford ma highlight.png. grendel|khan 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alter im Grenzgebiet zu Erithrea.jpg

Dito. Keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung. Ich würde vorschlagen dem Uploader links und rechts...keines seiner Bilder hat sowas. 82.207.204.235 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mädchen verkauft Holzkohle.jpg

Auch dieses Bild verletzt die Persönlichkeitsrechte der abgebildeten Person, da keine Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung vorliegt. 82.207.204.235 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden und das ist auch gut so! Die Genehmigung liegt mündlich vor. Beachtet bitte jedoch auch § 22 KUG: Die Einwilligung gilt im Zweifel als erteilt, wenn der Abgebildete dafür, daß er sich abbilden ließ, eine Entlohnung erhielt. Die Entlohnung für das Einverständnis hält das Model auf dem Foto noch in der Hand! --Kolumbusjogger 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zumindest in DE könne Minderjährigen solchen Vereinbarungen nicht rechtskräftig zustimmen, dafür ist die Einwilligung der Eltern erforderlich. Insbesondere bei Fotos von Kindern bin ich für strikte Zurückhaltung und würde nichts akzeptieren, wo die Einwilligung nicht schriftlich im OTRS vorliegt.--Wiggum 10:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Kolumbusjogger 11:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- Ranveig 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hayat-02.JPG

Keine Erlaubnis der abgebildtene Personen das Foto zu veröffentlichen. Verletzung der Persönlichkeitsrechte der abgebildeten Personen. 82.207.204.235 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Rtc 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep DO NOT DELETE THIS PICTURE! It shows me (left!!) and my uzbekish friend Sattor in his village Hayat and was taken by another friend! IT IS NOT PROMOTIONAL NOR PROFESSIONAL! It is private made!! --Dobschütz 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem. The problem is the lack of a model release. BTW, how can it be copyrighted by you if you were not the photographer? --Rtc 18:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked my friend to take this picture for me using my own camera. --Dobschütz 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make you the copyright holder. So the picture is additionally a copyright violation. Sorry, it will have to be deleted for lacking model releases AND for being a copyvio. --Rtc 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a passerby or (in this case) a friend takes the camera and snaps a picture on request of a person in the pic, I would assume that he implicitly transfered the copyrights, but not the moral rights. So the one who pressed the shutter button should be named as the photographer, but Dobschütz is the holder of copyright. On the other hand, the question of model release is a serous one. Can Dobschütz assure us, that he asked Sattor for a release, including potential global commercial publication? Most probably Sattor is a muslim, how does he feel about having his face availiable for worldwidde viewing? --h-stt !? 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. The only valid implicit full copyright transfer is from employee to the employer. In any other case, courts have accepted implicit license claims only as far as they were necessary for the purpose for which the photo had been taken originally. Has there been an agreement that the picture be made for Commons and did the photographer know that this requires GFDL licensing AND did he know what GFDL licensing means (anybody, commercial, derivative)? If not, licensing it as GFDL is outside the purpose of the implicit contract. Because such cases are always muddy waters, Commons basically does not accept implicit contract arguments and require explicit written permission in any case. --Rtc 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all photos from for example of Wikipedia conventions where not only one "model" release is documented on OTRS, or on an image's talk page have to be deleted? --Überraschungsbilder 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about copyright, not about model release; that's something entirely different. But yes, it's basically the same for model releases, they should be explicit. But deletion requests should be made only very careful, since Wikipedians naturally themselves know very well about the nature of Wikipedia and their pictures being published there. On the other hand, it should not be too difficult to get a model release from them after the fact. --Rtc 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobschütz -- is there any possibility you could get permission to release the picture from your photographing friend? -- Ranveig 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try it. But he is living in the outback of Uzbekistan. --Dobschütz 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lebensversicherung1929 oenb aus reichspost.png

The uploader doesn't seem to be the author – see original description ("Author:Scan") =>no licence =>delete--Hannes2·wp 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geese 2.jpg

REASON: This file is unused and unnecessary. --Wsiegmund 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gemini-Logo-B.png

I make this work, it's based on this public domain NASA pic hosting at commons, the pic is about a NASA emblem but reading the guidelines regarding the use of NASA material i found this point:
"12. NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above) before any reproduction materials can be obtained.".

Should i delete my image?, isn't any image at commons able to be modified?. sorry for write my question here but i dont know another place to put it. --Martin Rizzo 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Event-Roche Doktorarbeit aus dem Jahre 1978.jpg

Photo of protected work. --Rtc 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The content of the image is not the - still protected - thesis but the promotional poster to a lecture of the thesis. This poster was created by the uploader. It is used on the German wikipedia to illustrate two articles related to the subject. --ALE! 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The poster was created and photographed by the uploader? The image description page does not make that clear and needs to be updated then. Please do if you have the information. --Rtc 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Image:Button.gif

Its copyright tag is PD-too trivial, but I disagree. I think I can read "Design Group" in small letters and image is probably copyrighted. Conscious 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gerber.jpg

Die Person ist gerade noch so zu erkennen (insbesondere in Verbindung mit dem Firmenschild) und es liegt keine Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes vor. -> Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung. 84.63.116.52 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, the person probably did not give permission to be photographed. — Erin (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. How should you know? Strongly keep.--AndreasPraefcke 08:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scania huvudkontor Södertälje.jpg

The copyright holder of this picture is almost certainly the Scania company, as the photograper, Carl-Erik Andersson, is/was employed by them and obviously took this picture as part of his work. As Scania hasn't declared that any other of their pictures can be freely used, I doubt very much that they would have applied such a rule for this specific picture. Thomas Blomberg 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Furthermore, there is no evidence that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose". -Samulili 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alberto 2006 track.jpg

Unused jpg version of Image:Alberto 2006 track.png. Nearly all the files in its category are .png, delete this one for consistency.--Nilfanion 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete either of the two. — Erin (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: jpg would seem to be a better format for this sort of file (jpg=300 kb, png=600kb). NielsF 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:The program which is used to produce these files outputs as png and the conversion to jpg was done manually (due to a temporary breakage in png thumbnails on en.wiki). The jpg is actually a conversion of an old version of the png, which has been updated 4 times since. There will also be another update to this track at some point in the future.--Nilfanion 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skull- AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU.JPG

I have no idea what this is ("Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such.") and judging by the resolution, it doesn't seem to be own work. -Samulili 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stamp from a nazi related organization. I put {{Nazi symbol}} in there. --Rtc 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Crappy image. Two stamps superimposed over something else, obscuring it. What is the point of this image? There is so little info. If the uploader really possesses these objects, he can create a better image. If he doesn't, then this is probably a copyvio. — Erin (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the thing in the background is the stamp as a whole, the lower left is its head with the engraved seal, and the lower right is the result when applied to ink and paper. The text of the seal reads "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau". The skull is one of the SS-Totenkopfverbände skull variants. --Rtc 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc is right. This picture needs explanation but it think we should keep it.--Wiggum 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's not a matter of urgency. We may wait for better images. --Juiced lemon 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gub Brad Henry.gif

work from a US state -- ~Pyb 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dave heineman.jpg

Work from an US state -- ~Pyb 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Graafinen kuva.jpg

I have no idea what this is. It's dates of August on certain years and then there are something ranging from 0 to 160. It's not used anywhere so there's no way to tell. -Samulili 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Image:Viaduc de Millau par Filip42 sur Flickr (3).jpg

It's impossible to put an image under public domain on Flickr and the true license is CC-NC-SA -- ~Pyb 10:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:OAS

The copyright claim of this template is bogus. All images, tagged this way, have to be deleted immediately. In their Terms of Use at http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/disclaimer.asp OAS writes:

Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS.

--h-stt !? 10:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a pending deletionrequest for this template, please see Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) (July 20).--Wiggum 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, when I created the template I followed the terms of http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/photo_main.asp. Now, checking it again, it states "Photographs of official events are available through OAS website and can be used, free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged". Of course, free as in beer isn't free as in free speech; I can't really say if their terms have changed or I misread them the first time around. Taragüí @ 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

this is a duplicate discussion of Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) and is therefore being closed. Please look above. --ALE! 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Henny Eman statue.jpg

I uploaded this photograph of a statue in Oranjestad, Aruba. It later occurred to me that this might be a derivative work of the statue itself, and so the photograph may be a violation of the copyright of the sculptor. I would prefer that this image remain available on the Commons if there is no legal problem, but I decided to nominate it for deletion to bring this possible problem to others' attention. —Bkell (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:Politics_of_Aruba Aruba law is based on the Netherlands, which Commons:Derivative_works says is negative on freedom of panorama. William Avery 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Dutch copyright law clearly states in article 18 of the copyright law of 1912:

Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.

--> rough translation: if a work meant in article 10, eerste lid, 6° (first paragraph, 6°)(drawings, paintings, sculptures, buildings etc.) is made to be permanently installed in a public space, reproduction and publishing of pictures of the work as it is to be seen in public space isn't an infraction of copyright. AFAIK this law applies to the whole Kingdom of the Netherlands. Maybe commons:derivative works needs updating. However, I don't know if it being no infraction upon copyright in the Kingdom of the Netherlands means it's good enough for Commons. NielsF 00:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that the Netherlands does have freedom of panorama, in spite of what is said at Commons:Derivative works? —Bkell (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, I see that the list has been changed. —Bkell (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the devil is this for an outdated law. There is evidence that NL has no Panoramafreiheit citing the modern law at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alx/Sandbox#The_Netherlands --Historiograf 00:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore ;-). The current version of the law is what I stated above, which is from wetten.nl, Dutch goverment website, and http://www.ivir.nl/wetten/nl/auteurswet_01_04_2006.html, a website of the University of Amsterdam. NielsF 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've tried to find out where this change happened, but couldn't find it. I however suspect that it occured when Dutch copyright law was harmonised with the EU directives. The WIPO unfortunately only has an English version of 1972!!! NielsF 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in 2004. Give a proof that not only buildings are relevant and do not revert Alx/Sandbox without proof. I have quoted the Dutch version there --Historiograf 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Dutch, so I'm basing all of what I'm about to say on Babel Fish translations. The relevant portion of [27] that you posted at Alx/Sandbox seems to say that it applies to works as meant in Article 10, first paragraph, under 6°, and also engineering works (does this mean buildings?) as meant in as meant in Article 10, first paragraph, under 8°. Now, 6° says "teeken-, schilder-, bouw- en beeldhouwwerken, lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken", which I guess means "Works of teeken (photographers?), painters, constructors (artists?), and sculptors; lithographs, engravings, and other platework". So it would seem that what you posted applies not only to buildings but to forms of art as well. Of course, I need a Dutch speaker to confirm that these shaky translations are correct. —Bkell (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, teeken clearly does not mean photographer, as photographic works are covered in 9°. I just realized that I'm sitting in a library right by the foreign language section, so I picked up a Dutch–English dictionary, but it doesn't seem to list teeken. It does confirm that bouw means a building, construction, or erection; I'm not sure why I guessed that meant artist. I guess I don't trust Babel Fish enough. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated User:Alx/Sandbox with a more accurate translation. Bkell is correct in his assumption. Article 18 refers to the reproduction or publishing of depictions (aka photographs, drawings) of a work as meant in article 16, first paragraph, 6° and 8°. Teekenwerken = drawings, Schilderwerken = paintings, Bouwwerken = architectural ("building") works, Beeldhouwwerken = sculptures and so on and so on. NielsF 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: you probably couldn't find teeken because it's old spelling, it's now spelled as teken. Check under tekenen (infinitive). NielsF 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for those of us who don't speak Dutch: is there freedom to use pictures of statues and buildings. Is Aruba law the same as Netherlands? It looked like a separate dominion to me. William Avery 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Learn it ;-). On a serious note: Aruban and Netherlands Antillean law is sometimes slightly different from European Netherlands law. However Aruban and/or Netherlands Antillean law isn't available on the internet afaik. The only thing I know is that changes to the Dutch law because of EU Copyright Directive 2001/29 where also submitted to Aruban and/or Netherland Antillean parliaments, so in good faith I have no reason to doubt that the aforementionted text doesn't apply to those areas. In the statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in article 39 it's also mentioned that: Het burgerlijk en handelsrecht, de burgerlijke rechtsvordering, het strafrecht, de strafvordering, het auteursrecht, de industriële eigendom, het notarisambt, zomede bepalingen omtrent maten en gewichten worden in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba zoveel mogelijk op overeenkomstige wijze geregeld. Rough translation: "the civil and commercial law, civil claims, criminal law, criminal claims, copyright, industrial property, notary law, as well as decisions about sizes and weights, will be regulated in the same way as much is possible in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."
I'll try to get hold of a Dutch law expert, but don't get your hopes up. NielsF 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RIGIS

This copyright template is bogus. RIGIS publishes their maps under a strict noncommercial licence, as seen in their License Agreement at: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis-spf/license.html

1.4 Prohibited Use -- Unauthorized Distribution. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of RIGIS digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of the Licensor.

The template as well as all images tagged that way have to be deleted. --h-stt !? 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a pending deletionrequest for this template, please see Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) (July 20).--Wiggum 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is for the actual GIS data. Maps derived from such data are however not covered by that, but by a separate license. What RIGIS publishes is files that contain definitions of geographic features. From that, one can make maps like Image:RI towns West Warwick.png. RIGIS did not create the map. --SPUI 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Varsinais-Suomen vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Varsinais-Suomen.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until the SVG is improved. Assuming that the bitmap is accurate, I see various problems with the vector version. For example, the faded colours, and the lack of drop shadow on the top parts. — Erin (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Look at the coat of arms on this page : two standards behind a helmet. Do you recognize these items on the .svg image ? notice that the shafts are not straight in this last one. --Juiced lemon 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muhos CoatOfArms.png

Unused and superseded by Muhos.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fountian.jpg

REASON: No freedom of panorama for art works within the USA. William Avery 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? 24.52.28.34 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)photographer[reply]

Whos permission do i need for this to be okay to use for the city's wiki entry?

You need the permission of the artist who created the sculpture... --Stefan-Xp 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sculpture it's a fountain.

In this case you'll need the permission of the Creator of the Fountian. --Stefan-Xp 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it for now, I'll see what i can do about finding the creator and obtaining permission. What sort of Documentation will to need to verify the legitimacy of the authorization?

July 23

(this refers only to the template, not the pictures. these can be changed to the standard GFDL template plus appropriate copyright notices) (only if the author agreed, I guess - Halibutt)

Let's avoid that it becomes a habit that commons users make their private license templates and please let's be clear about one point: You may not add further restrictions to the GFDL. This may be little known, but please understand the following trick the FSF has done to ensure you do not do this:

  • The GFDL requires itself to be part of any work in which it is used
  • The GFDL itself is copyrighted. " Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...]"
  • The GFDL states "changing it is not allowed."

And that also excludes indirect changing by reference. You may thus not add additional restictions to the GFDL. Why does the FSF do that? They do not want you to say "it uses a GNU license" when you added restrictions that the FSF does not approve of. So while you as the author are not bound to the GFDL in that you can dual-license your work under a different license, you are very well bound to certain restrictions for the usage of the GFDL itself, since the FSF does only allow the license to be printed under aforementioned conditions.

The attribution you want is already ensured by the GFDL. Make a section 'copyright notices' on the image description page and add your desired credit there. --Rtc 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What additional restriction you're talking about? I can't see any... A.J. 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Under moral rights the user requires that this work be properly attributed to its creator. For photographs, this is traditionally done in the image caption. Where a copyright notice is present, using the copyright notice in the caption will be sufficient." Where the original license merely requires copyright notices to be kept, Halibutt additionally demands the author to be credited under all possible circumstances, even if no copyright notice is present. He also adds a strong rationale for how he would like the license to be interpreted, ie. where copyright notices have to be placed in his opinion. It's essentially the conjunction of something-like-CC-by and GFDL, but these licenses are not compatible. . --Rtc 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it that way: it's just an little more explanation for what "attribution" means and what forms of attribution are prefered by Halibutt, thats all... Is it really against GFDL? A.J. 10:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not a modified GFDL. In fact it is my personal license, with GFDL added to it. So it's not adding further restrictions to GFDL, it's adding the restrictions of the GFDL to Halibutt's copyright license. The GFDL itself requires attribution, but it does not specify that - and people usually violate that part anyway (believe me, some of my pics published under GFDL were even published in newspapers without any source credited, not even the English wiki where I uploaded them). That's why I'm releasing all my pics under my own personal license, which in itself is compliant with the GFDL, with the exception of the disclaimer. As A.J. put it, it's merely my explanation of what I mean by attribution - an explanation that is lacking in plain GFDL. As is explicitly said, if anyone wanted me to, I could release my pics under PD, CC-by or any other license as well, so it's not a problem. However, all I need is credit, for the rest plain GFDL is enough.
Now then, I would not agree to release all my work under plain GFDL as long as it's violated as often as it is. I demand nothing more than already is in the GFDL, including what you call demand of credit under all possible circumstances. It also demands the license to be repeated, so there's no my invention in that. I merely underline what's already in the GFDL, and state explicitly what in GFDL is left up to the good will of the user. I'm not an idealist now and I don't leave it up to others to decide. So the rules are pretty simple: want to use my work - credit me this way or another. Want to change its license to PD and pretend it was you to made the picture - contact me and I will allow you to. Want to use my picture under plain GFDL - contact me and I will also allow you to. But don't use my work as if it was your own without letting me know. It's pretty fair I believe. Halibutt
Sorry, it's not a disclaimer. You don't disclaim anything. "I would not agree to release all my work under plain GFDL" that exactly shows that it's incompatible with the GFDL. "So it's not adding further restrictions to GFDL, it's adding the restrictions of the GFDL to Halibutt's copyright license." Effectively that's the same. You may not add further restrictions to the GFDL if you want to use it. Please understand that. If people are violating the GFDL terms, please sue them and please let them pay you for it, but please don't imprudently add restrictions. Why don't you use CC-by-sa instead? That seems to be a license that would perhaps be better suited for your desires. No, it's not acceptable that people start doing such things. We don't want 1000 personal licenses, all incompatible and legally questionable. What's next? Users adding statements like "You may use it under GFDL, but not to harm animals" etc? Anybody else is fine with the plain GFDL, so please be fine with it, too. --Rtc 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be a better wording? "Except for the disclaimer above the license is compatible with GFDL"? That's what the tag says anyway... and besides, as an author of the said works I am allowed to release them under any license I please, don't you think? Halibutt 06:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the situation several times. a) Please understand that the GFDL is copyrighted. That means everybody needs the FSF's permission to redistribute it if he wants to do so. The FSF hat granted permission to do this, however it added a condition: Only if the GFDL has not been changed. That especially means no further restrictions, not even indirectly. If you release Image X under "GFDL"-Halibutt, and somebody wants to redistribute X, he can only do so by including the GFDL. But including the GFDL in a work that has imposed further restrictions immediately voids the FSF's permission to redistribute the GFDL itself and results in a copyright violation. This is an intentional provision by the FSF so you do not do add restrictions and still call it GFDL, and it is also one of the reasons for why the license needs to be included in the first place. So effectively you cannot release your work under the GFDL with additional restrictions, even if you are the author. You may release it under equivalent terms, however, you must make a completely new license for this. You may not re-use the GFDL's preamble, you may not call it GFDL, not call it a GNU or FSF license etc. b) Even if you may release your stuff under any licensing terms you want, Commons only wants pictures which are using one of the existing licenses. A better wording would be simply using one of the existing templates. I don't see how this should be a problem. FSF and CC have done their job very well and have spent lots of time carefully writing the licenses. There's no problem with them that would need to be fixed by you. --Rtc 08:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about changing that license to something that would explicitly say that it's my own license that is identical to GFDL with the exception that I take the liberty to use invariant sections (as in GFDL, BTW)? It's not even modifying the original GFDL, it's merely pointing to the fact that I request everyone to abide by the invariant sections? Also, where is the rule stating that I cannot release my work under my own license? As long as it's a free license all is ok. Anyway, of course if the Commons do not like my work to be freely modifiable nor free for further distribution, then I could of course mark it as CC (is it possible to withdraw any document that's been released under GFDL and claim it's no longer free?). However, it was not my intention and I was happy with the current license. Why exactly do you want my work removed? Halibutt 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No! You may not base your license in any way on the GFDL if you want to make additional restrictions. You have to write it from scratch! Invariant sections won't help you there and are not accepted on commons. GFDL with invariant sections is not a free license anymore. I repeated several times it does not matter if you modify the GFDL itself, or include it by reference and state the differences to yours. You can license your work under your own license, but you may not license your work under the GFDL if you do not respect the copyright terms the FSF has made for copying and distributing the GFDL itself! Is it so hard to understand? Please avoid making new 'free' licenses. Use one of the existing templates. You cannot withdraw any document you already released under the GFDL. You can additionally mark it CC, but none of the -NC or -ND licenses are accepted here. I do not want your work removed but merely your licensing template, as I wrote at the very beginning. Please simply replace your template by the boilerplate GFDL one. Anybody else is fine with it and we can't make an exception just because it's you. Thanks. --Rtc 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote GFDL then:
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: (...) G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.. So apparently the authors of the GFDL license saw no problem with including the invariant sections whatsoever. How so they did not consider invariant sections as violating the GFDL, while you argue to the contrary? Or is there something I'm missing here?
Let's get further down that road then. My disclaimer is by no means a violation of the GFDL, as it is legally a part of the document, not the license. But even if it was, it simply states what already is a part of GFDL: You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium (...) provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. I add no new conditions to the license as it already requests the copyright notices to be repeated.
Oh, and I already said that apparently the plain GFDL does not work the way it was meant to be and the wiki community frequently violates it. As long as there is acceptance to such breaching of my moral rights to my work, I will continue to add the invariant section to all the documents I create, just as I did in the past. And from the above fragment it seems clear that it's perfectly ok to do so, as the GFDL notice is a license template, while my notification is legally part of the image itself. Oh, and to paraphrase your comment: everybody was fine with my license and I don't know why should I change it just because it's you. Halibutt 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another idea: perhaps I could release all of my work under plain GFDL if only we modified the {{GFDL}} tag to include the mention that the license requires proper credit for the author of the original work. That would do I guess, as such a notice would look more or less the way it does in my license anyway. Halibutt 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I did not say "invariant sections as violating the GFDL". They however make your document non-free and are against policy here. Further, your abuse of invariant sections to add additional restrictions to the GFDL makes redistribution of your work illegal: People can only either violate your copyright by not including the GFDL, or, in any other case, they violate the FSF's copyright by including the GFDL, but with your additional restrictions. That's a legal trap built in by the FSF especially for this reason so you do not abuse the GFDL and using its good name, but by adding further restrictions to it..
You are not violating anything. Redistributors of your work do, as just said. And again: What you added was not a disclaimer. A disclaimer is something such as "I am not responsible for what you do with the image." What you added was an additional restriction, which makes it illegal to distribute your work together with the GFDL text. Please get this simple fact. The GFDL does not require proper credit for the author. It requires copyright notices to be kept. That's something entirely different. As I said, if people are violating the GFDL, that is not to be fixed your homebrew restrictions to it. Instead, I recommend you start enforcing the GFDL that will have much more the promised effect and will help to spread the word and thus, help other people too. Let's make a deal: We stop the discussion now, which only repeats itself, and you change your templates to plain GFDL, alternatively, you can pick a CC license. Else I will request deletion, because the invariant section makes them partly nonderivative, and thus non free and against policy. If you want to keep your pictures on commons you have to comply with the policies. You are in fact free to "release [your] work under any license [you] like", however, commons is just as free to reject your work for any reason it likes. Okay? --Rtc 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're assuming my bad faith and intentions, which is wrong. Let me respond in points:
  1. Technically speaking, the GFDL does not cover the picture as such but rather its binary form, as the license was not meant for graphic works. So what I am placing under the GFDL is not a picture of a horse, but rather a lengthy set of zeroes and ones, with some short signature in the beginning.
  2. Anyway, the GFDL is a "kind of" free license. The GFDL includes a possibility to add invariant sections to the document without the document being less free when tagged with GFDL. Hence I have no idea what are you talking about. If we treat my disclaimer (or whatever you call the bilingual text by yours truly) as an invariant section, it fits perfectly into the GFDL. Whoever distributes or modifies the lengthy set of 0-1 chains, has to include the section no matter what - in order not to violate the GFDL.
  3. On the other hand you have a point that all those who redistribute my work should not only include the original license and credit the author, but also repeat my entire disclaimer, which is not what I wanted, as my name is enough. So I could simply change the entire lengthy bilingual text into simple Invariant section: original image made by Halibutt. Or...
  4. we could treat the disclaimer (call it any way you like) as simply repeating what's already said in the license. In that case it is also perfectly ok, as there is no statement that would be in conflict with the GFDL. The license itself requires the users of my work to credit me anyway, so whether I ask them for that specifically or not is left up to me.
  5. The copyright notice is the notice of who owns the copyright. Since GFDL is not PD, I retain my copyrights as the author (as per the Berne Convention, for instance) of the work, regardless of the fact that - under the terms of the GFDL - I limit my rights to let the others do what they please with it. Yet I'm still the owner of some of the copyrights. If I offend someone with my work and get sued for that - it is me to go to jail. If I commit plagiarism - it is still me to be held responsible for that. As a journalist I use such licenses almost every day, as by selling my articles to my publisher I also sell some of the rights (specifically the right to copy and distribute the material, even without my consent; that's the strict-sense-copyrights), while I retain my undisclaimable rights to my work (that's the broad-sense-copyright). This is exactly what I do in commons as well: I allow anyone to become the publisher or co-author of my work and its derivates, yet I do not (and possibly even cannot) disclaim of some of my rights as the author. Which is why a copyright notice is where my name could be mentioned.
  6. Also, check the ADDENDUM to the GFDL, where the specific example of a license tag is prepared. There's place for my name (as the copyright owner) and the year of the creation, so such notices are perfectly ok with the license. It's up to me whether I say "Copyright: Halibutt (2004)" or "The owner of the copyright (Halibutt) releases this picture under the GFDL and requests proper attribution". I could even put my entire biography there.
  7. Finally, as my tag is perfectly ok with the GFDL, whichever way we turn the cat, the text by yours truly could be treated simply as a handy way to add my signature to every file I upload to commons without having to write it again and again. As a compromise I could move my tag to where it originally was, that is my own namespace. It was not me to move it to main commons space and I'm perfectly ok with the idea that it is returned to where it was (User:Halibutt/GFDL). How about that? Halibutt 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assume bad faith, I just see that you hardly try to understand the issue and do not see that using your private license template in this fashion not necessary and even harmful.
  1. Wrong. Copyright always protects the creativity, redardless of the license.
  2. the GFDL is "kind of" a free license only as long as the list of invariant sections is empty. There are two independent issues here: a) You use invariant sections, which is against policy here, since it makes the license non-free, b) You abuse invariant sections to indirectly add restrictions to the GFDL, which to prevent the FSF has taken legal provisions for.
  3. Again: all those who redistribute your work are forced to commit a copyright violation, as I said. Either they violate your copyright (they do not redistribute the GFDL text) or they violate the FSF's copyright on the GFDL license text (because they redistribute the GFDL text in a document that has only been licensed under a license more restrictive than the GFDL, which the FSF does not permit). It's a Catch-22, deliberately introduced by the FSF so you do not add such further restrictions. You could simply change the entire license template by the usual GFDL.
  4. Again: Your "disclaimer" does not simply repeat what's already said in the license. The license does not require the users of your work to credit you. It requires copyright statements to be kept.
  5. Entirely unrelated to the problem.
  6. Yes, check the ADDENDUM and stick to it. It's not up to you to say "Copyright: Halibutt (2004)" or "The owner of the copyright (Halibutt) releases this picture under the GFDL and requests proper attribution", because the latter is an invalid restriction of the GFDL.
  7. As a compromise you could change your template to redirect to the standard Commons GFDL template and add the copyright statement as given in the GFDL addendum to your pictures:
Copyright (c)  2006  Halibutt   {{GFDL}}
(The {{GFDL}} adds the rest)
You may add an informal statement such as "Note that the above copyright notice is part of the document and section 4 of the GFDL requires that 'you must [...] [p]reserve all the copyright notices of the Document."
--Rtc 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh... and you state that it's me who doesn't listen...
  1. You might be right, that doesn't change much here. The GFDL does not mention my creattivity but rather textual documents, but what the heck.
  2. a) only as long as the list of invariant sections is empty - says who? So you suggest that Wikipedia is not free because it is subject to disclaimers that are not part of the GFDL? What I request for my work is exactly what Wikipedia requires from those who copy its' content (specifically here). Wikipedia, the non-free encyclopedia...? b) I do not abuse the invariant sections as that is what they were invented for and if we treat my text as an invariant section, it does not add any more provisions that are already within the standard GFDL, as already explained above. I do not require people to ask me for permission every time someone uses my work, I do not restrict the usage of my work to non-commercial appliances, nor do I limit the terms of the GFDL in any way. I simply repeat what is already there.
  3. Absurd, you apparently don't read my explanation. Either they violate your copyright (they do not redistribute the GFDL text) - they have to include it as per the GFDL, so there is no problem here. or they violate the FSF's copyright on the GFDL license text (because they redistribute the GFDL text in a document that has only been licensed under a license more restrictive than the GFDL) - absurd as well, since my text is by no means more restrictive. It does not add any more provisions. If it does - what are the provisions that would not be within the GFDL? Name them specifically please.
  4. Which means 100% the same in this case: the license requires people to mention my name, I require the same. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not even requiring the people to cite the original year of publication, so I even make it less restrictive - which is perfectly ok with the GFDL as well.
  5. Not really unrelated to the problem, check No. 4 above.
  6. How so? Stating that I request proper attribution as per section 4 is ok, while stating that I request proper attribution is not? That does not make sense, dear. Really.
  7. Sure, I could do the same with the entire text: I could mark it as an informal statement (which it is). Would adding the words "Informal statement" or "Advise" suit you? Halibutt 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to discuss with you. Of course I listen and I have seen such argumentation really a dozen of times, but it's sad you don't see the problems with your position.
  1. Yes, it's among other things about text. Text, as such, also has creative elements.
  2. This is common knowledge.[28][29]. If commons would allow invariant sections, it would specifically mention this.
  3. a) The Wikipedia list of invariant sections is empty: "with no Invariant Sections". Yes, they include disclaimers. That's fine. Disclaimers are not invariant sections in the sense of the license. You don't include disclaimers. You include additional restrictions. Please look up what a disclaimer is. It's not an arbitrary declaration. b) The invariant sections were invented for you to express your personal opinion about philosophy, politics and such. Not to play legal tricks.
  4. Please accept this simple fact that it is something entirely different to keep copyright notices and to require attribution. The GFDL is not an attribution license. It is primarily a copyleft license.
  5. Your text is more restrictive, as you require attribution and not merely copyright notices to be kept. I can only repeat it. At best, you are suggesting a very specific interpretation of the GFDL, but that's effectively a restriction to this specific interpretation. Don't do this. You risk redistributors of your version being sued by the FSF for inappropriate distribution of the GFDL text.
  6. section 4 does not request proper attribution. It requests copyright notices to be kept. Get this simple fact.
  7. Do as I described and use the GFDL tag as anybody else does. I will request the deletion for all your pictures for deletion if you don't. It's a fair compromise and very well takes care of the problems you have. I don't see a reason for you to reject this compromise and I can hardly assume good faith anymore if you insist on this specific "solution". Don't be so stubborn, you won't do you a favour. --Rtc 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First of all, commons is not Debian. Secondly, if the Commons had any problems with invariant sections, it would specifically be said so in one of our rules here. I mean our rules, not those of Debian or any other society/company/whatever. What's not forbidden is accepted. OTOH feel free to propose such a rule and pass it by some voting. I'd be happy to take part too.
  3. And again, I'm not playing legal tricks as I'm pretty straight-forward on this one. But this is not important here as, let m repeat for the umpteenth time, my request/notification/disclaimer/note/invariant section/whatever is by no means more restrictive than the GFDL itself. I already explained that and I consider the matter solved.
  4. I require my name to be mentioned as the author. GFDL requires my name to be mentioned as the copyright holder. The name is the same, the reason is a secondary matter. I could modify the text and change the moral rights to GFDL. Would that sound better?
  5. That's right. I am suggesting certain ways, while I by no means require anyone to follow my advise. As long as they follow standard GFDL and mention my name (for whatever reason they chose, be it moral rights, good will, decency, copyright law, anything) it's ok with me. If the people ignore my suggestion - it's still fine with me, as long as the name is there. How is that any more restrictive?
  6. As per the above
  7. It's not a compromise, it's basically blackmail. Give up your rights to your work or I'll delete it, including the featured pics you've made. You stick to your own interpretation of both the GFDL and my own words, yet it's apparently little more than that: your own interpretation. I already released my work under GFDL and I'm merely using a personal tag. No rule forbids me to do it, I don't violate any laws or regulations, not even the copyright of the GFDL. If you believe that the tag should be deleted anyway - fine. But please invent some better explanation, as the one you presented does not hold the water. All is based on your assumption that I restrict the GFDL to my own interpretation, which is wrong. I do not, I'm merely suggesting it. And it's my right to do that, just like it is the right of other people to ignore it. Halibutt 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my last message here before I am putting your pictures for deletion. You are still not seeing the difference between requiring attribution and merely keeping copyright notices. "GFDL requires my name to be mentioned as the copyright holder" That is just plain wrong and I repeated it again and again. It requires copyright notices to be kept. I'm sorry if you don't understand this basic difference, but then again I can't change it. I urge you again to take the advice and do as I suggested (which is not a specific interpretation, not a restriction but merely a restatement of the license). I simply ask you to use the plain GFDL as anybody else is fine with. Alternatively, use a Cc-by license if you want attribution. Your position can't be tolerated because that would result in each user making his own private GFDL license with his own invariant section, his own interpretation and his own additional restrictions. Yes, free licenses are exactly about giving up many of your rights. --Rtc 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First you'd have to explain why exactly each user should not create his own tag for him or herself. Then you'd have to explain (which you did not so far) how are the invariant sections banned on commons. After that you'd have to find some evidence that my name looks different when quoted within a copyright notice and separately. But I can't force you to do anything like that. Perhaps posting all of my work for deletion just because you did not understand the GFDL license is easier than reading it - and my arguments - again. Whichever way you go - be sure to get enough attention from yours truly.
Anyway, I already asked you how would you like my personal tag to be modified. I already said that I don't accept blackmail and that I will not use plain GFDL, especially that I cannot retag my pictures that were already released under certain license. However, it is up to me to reword the tag and I'd be happy to do so, if only you see such need. Feel free to propose some wording. By now I specifically marked my comment as a copyright notice. Halibutt 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Keep Halibutt 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not suffice to merely call something a 'disclaimer' or 'copyright notices', they actually have to be a disclaimer/copyright notice! A copyright notice to me looks like "Copyright (c) 2006 Halibutt". Your additional restrictions simply won't become any better if you call them in a different way. Since you have made no effort to understand the problem and because you seem not to even consider to use the plain GFDL template or a CC license, I did not have a choice than to list your pictures for deletion. It's really sad because there are many good ones, but Commons just can't accept restrictions and personal license tags in exchange for a few good fotos. That is some kind of blackmailing. But we'll surely find unencumbered replacements for your pictures. --Rtc 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing to a CC-BY variant would fix the problem.--Wiggum 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Keep, please stop w:wikilawyering and assume good faith, the bottomline is this is a copyleft open source license, which does not in anyway prevent those images from being used by Wikimedia projects, and that's all that matters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding the problem that the pictures with Halibutts License cannot be redistributed legally. Even they could, they would have the problems of the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, rendering it effectively a non-free license. --Rtc 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Keep per Piotrus. Let me also state that Halibutt has contributed hundreds of images which have been of great value to the Wikipedia project, especially for articles related to Poland. If those graphics are thrown out, this will vastly downgrade the quality of many excellent articles, including some which achieved FA status on English Wiki. Balcer 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user was given several reasonable alternatives (copyright notice + plain GFDL, CC-BY-SA) none of which he accepted. He wanted to have his own homebrew license with invariant sections. That, in turn, can't be accepted on commons. May I make my own license tomorrow, with my own restrictions? --Rtc 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I did accept your proposal to consider the text as a copyright notice rather than invariant section, eventhough invariant sections are perfectly ok with the commons. What I did not accept was your blackmail, which is a different thing. As to your question above - of course you may create your own license. If you are the copyright holder of certain document, you are entitled to do almost anything. In most legal systems you cannot renounce all of your rights to the document, but you could release most of it. For instance under your own license similar to the PD. Or under the plain GFDL, as I did. Or under CC-by-SA you promote. Or you could simply state that you renounce your rights and allow anyone to do anything with your work. Such a statement would be a license in itself, thus equalling a lengthy license with lots of clauses. There is no rule on Commons forcing you to chose any particular license, it is left up to the copyright owners. The only restriction is that the license should be of a free type, which is clearly the case here. Halibutt 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your license isn't free, because invariant sections are nonderivative and because your pictures effectively cannot be redistributed legally, as I stressed several times. Why don't you simply change to CC-BY-SA or plain GFDL with copyright notice? I don't see any reason at all for it not to be done. You are blackmailing Commons with your own license, not the other way around. Also, if your request to keep the template would be successful, other users will start to do the same and we'll soon have thousands of personal licenses, all with their own invariant section. If you want your own license, write it from scratch and request its acceptance on commons, but you may not derive a new license from a GNU one. --Rtc 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... in case you had not noticed, I already asked you to provide a link to a rule prohibiting:
  1. freedom of choice of a proper license
  2. usage of lengthy comments at image description pages
  3. use of invariant sections on commons
  4. use of invariant sections within the GFDL
  5. redistribution of pictures licensed under GFDL
I request nothing more than already is in the GFDL and I already said that. Whatever the intepretation of my comment there be (invariant section/copyright notice/legal advise/comment/image description/...), it is still the same old GFDL, and it's still the same free license. Also, it is you to question that and it is you who should provide some rationale for your accusations. Links to specific rules on commons preferred. Halibutt 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy yet, but you can clearily see that it's the way it's going here. No picture with personal licenses, except yours. No pictures with additional restrictions, except yours. No pictures with invariant sections, except yours. You are requesting more than already is in the GFDL, see, for the companion GPL license they actually added an exception (in the current version 3, still draft) to allow exactly that specific additional restriction you are making here. At best, you are introducing legal hassles with your license. You did not provide an explanation for why you reject to change to CC-BY-SA, which would solve your problems without at the same time introducing new ones. Be reasonable and change to CC-BY-SA please. --Rtc 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not have legal problems anymore, I'd still like to see it without invariant section, but that's a policy thing and policy does not clearly forbid it. --Rtc 20:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete If such personal licensing tags and invariant sections become prolific commons would be a quagmire. The users's concern is that people do not follow the GFDL, so why would they not ignore this non-standard tag? Having a template (that is not an invariant section or otherwise) that says you are willing to relicense and other things would be fine, but this is just weird. If there really isn't policy against invariant sections, someone should propose it. Kotepho 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to a Commons policy that would prohibit such tags. If there is no such policy, then there is quite simply no justification for deleting the tag, which would likely lead to the removal of hundreds of excellent graphics that Halibutt uploaded. I understand your concern about proliferation of tags, but as you mentioned, this has not yet become a problem, and Halibutt and his excellent contributions deserve a lot of leeway in any case. Balcer 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Project scope. If you want to be a policy wonk about it, "Valid licenses can be found at Commons:Copyright tags.". It isn't listed, ergo, it isn't a license accepted by commons (it is a license, no it isn't, it is a copyright notice, no it isn't, it is a fish, no it isn't.. i'm not even sure what people think it is). There is also the issue that it may not even be a valid invariant section, as an invariant section must be a secondary section and it may not be considered one for various reasons.
His images may be fantastic, but that does not change the fact that a bright line against such things is quite useful, otherwise we will have to debate this with every single one created with this one being cited as precendent. This does not further the goal of commons, to provide free content media, as it is not "free". (Maybe I'm a bit of an outlier, I don't really think the GPL is free enough, much less the GFDL.) Should we wait until people start making licensing tags and including invariant sections promoting holocaust denial? I would rather nip it in the bud. Kotepho 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if Halibutt adds his tag to Commons:Copyright tags, everything will be all right as far as you are concerned? Then I invite him to do that. Commons does after all accept copyright tags made by single individuals, for example Template:Picswiss. BTW, I fail to follow the reasoning by which Halibutt's innocent tag would be a first step on a slippery slope to tags promoting Holocaust denial. Obviously, any tag which would go beyond presenting copyright information and try to promote some POV would be fit for deletion in any case. Balcer 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Picswiss example is a tag for a site, not the contributor. If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing. Use the normal gfdl template, but also make a template that says "This image is from site foo, images released under the gdfl by them with permission at bar." or whatever. And no, just adding it to the list is not make everything "all right" in my mind. Policy is not designed to enumerate every possible scenario, thus just because something is not forbidden (or accepted) does not mean it should or should not be. Kotepho 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if Halibutt created a website and made his images available there as well, everything would be all right? Then I invite him to do that as well :). More seriously, your comment about the other tag: "If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing" suggests that you not only have a problem with Halibutt's tag, but with a whole family of tags on Commons, in which users add their comments to GFDL policy (for example Template:Photo-by-Wojciechowscy-GFDL). Well, if that is your concern, then you should propose instituting a specific policy on Commons that would expressly forbid any such tags (i.e. Template:GFDL would be the only one allowed in all circumstances when GFDL is mentioned in any way). That would be the proper way to resolve this problem. Going after individual users' tags, while leaving others alone, is simply unfair. Anyway, removing hundreds high quality images from Commons is a serious thing and should only be done when a specific policy has been violated. I still await a link that would explicitly state why Halibutt's tags (and others like it on Commons) are forbidden. Balcer 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history of that tag you will notice that it started out life as a tag blatantly against commons policy. That is why these tags are bad, too much nonsense to keep track of. Obviously {{gfdl}} is not the only valid gfdl tag, as there is version 1.1, 1.2, some with disclaimers, some with no disclaimers, etc. These tags just saying "licensed under the gfdl" are not helpful. "Going after individual user' tags...", so we should not delete copyright violations because other copyright violations exist that are being 'left alone'? I don't buy this argument of "but these are great pictures". I'm sure I could find many professional pictures that are under non-commercial restrictions. Should I upload them and then complain when people try to delete them because they are not free? No, that would be violating w:en:WP:POINT. With this tag, these images are not free. Non-free images are against policy. Kotepho 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not suggesting violating copyright if the pictures are particularly nice. All I am saying is that perfect legal clarity and tidiness should not be the only values to guide Commons policies. Yes, if all personal tags were banned, Commons would be more tidy and there would be fewer tags to keep track of, but the price of that would be that some contributors who value personal tags would not work as hard to upload their graphics. In my personal opinion, Commons needs to find some midpoint between legal clarity and simplicity, and the desires of contributing users, who after all are what keeps this project going in the first place.
In that spirit, instead of just voting to delete Halibutt's tag on the basis that the pictures it labels are not free, could you please suggest how the tag could be reworded, so that your legal concerns could be addressed? Please note that Halibutt has already modified the tag as a result of this discussion, and the changes seem to me to have eliminated the problem. Balcer 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The legal problems that the pictures were not redistributable legally have been solved, though very inelegantly. The picture is still not entirely free, because of the invariant section. I gave several suggestions about how it could be done instead. Either copyright notice + plain GFDL + informal statement, but not as an invariant section, or CC-BY-SA. Halibutt does not accept either of them. The personal tag would be much less problematic if it were only related to one of the existing licenses plus an informal visual indication that it's been done by him (basically as done for existing tags used for websites). But in this case, it is done as an invariant section and we need to be careful about that. --Rtc 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete at all. I suggested above that changing to CC-BY would fix the problem, i just saw that Rtc pointed out this possibility before. I would prefer if we stick to the existing templates so straightforward use of the Commons stuff is assured. I wouldn't like if anybody creates his personal license in terms of usage conditions.--Wiggum 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if Halibutt switched his license to CC-BY, that would go some way towards resolving the problem. Still, it is human nature to often have an emotional attachment to one's creative work, and if Halibutt feels that his graphics descriptions require an additional personal touch as far as the license is concerned, that should be his prerogative, given the huge quantity and quality of his contributions.Balcer 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. If I used plain CC-by, I would add such a note to every single picture anyway. The only difference would be my own convenience. And this was warranted enough by the original version of this tag that was in my own user space. It was moved to main space - fine with me. It is to be moved back to my user space - fine as well. However, it's simply easier to tag all pics with a single tag than to add the text by hand. Halibutt 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, as Rtc noted above, the legal problems have been solved, so I consider the case closed. Halibutt 09:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinesische Küche.jpg

Es liegt keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Personen zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes vor. Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung. 84.63.120.205 16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sievin vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Sievi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why the colour difference? The png has a golden colour, SVG more brownish. What's the heraldic description say? NielsF 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Both match heraldic descriptio. Colors are from http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;102942;486;84531;84552 --Tomia 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VCG.jpg and Image:HD217107.jpg

Uploaded by User:Hurricane Devon, who has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia for endlessly repeated copyright violations. VCG.jpg is taken from a site that claims copyright on its images, and I couldn't find where permission was granted; the other was taken from a site with no statement of the copyright of its images. Because of the uploader, and his history of ignoring copyrights, we should view these licenses very skeptically. Mangojuice 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dynamite.jpg

From en.wp: "This appears to be an Oregon State Gov't photo, not federal." -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete--GeorgHH 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete work of state government and not of the US federal gov.. --ALE! 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-US-mugshot

Per discussion at Template talk:PD-US-mugshot#Freeness and w:Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness, I believe the public-domain rationale given has no sound basis in copyright law. Mugshots are not edicts of legislature and so are not denied copyright by the United States. They are public records, and copyright on them varies from state to state (see also Template:PD-CAGov). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

A bunch of orphaned superseded images

Hi, I orphaned the following ugly badJPEGs from every wikipedia edition where they were still used. el.wikipedia.org appears to have duplicate copies of all of them (which are not currently used, and have no copyright info there, so they should be speedied, but i know not the template that is used over there). They all are orphaned everwhere and have been superseded by better looking non-artifacted SVGs.

Here's the list:
Image:Small-triangle-Armed-Forces.jpg Image:Small-triangle-Czech.jpg image:Small-triangle-Pole.jpg Image:Small-triangle-band.jpg Image:Small-triangle-black.jpg Image:Small-triangle-blue.jpg Image:Small-triangle-escape.jpg Image:Small-triangle-green.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-black.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-blue.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-green.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-pink.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-purple.jpg Image:Small-triangle-jew-red.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-black.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-blue.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-green.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-pink.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-purple.jpg Image:Small-triangle-penal-red.jpg Image:Small-triangle-pink.jpg Image:Small-triangle-purple.jpg Image:Small-triangle-raccce-defile-fem.jpg Image:Small-triangle-raccce-defile-male.jpg Image:Small-triangle-red.jpg Image:Small-triangle-rep-black.jpg Image:Small-triangle-rep-blue.jpg Image:Small-triangle-rep-green.jpg Image:Small-triangle-rep-purple.jpg Image:Small-triangle-rep-red.jpg Image:Small-triangle-serial.jpg Image:Small-triangle-sleeve.jpg

--Aknorals 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Most of the .svg images does not look like original badges (see [30] and [31]), which were made with fabric, not plastic. For example, this picture shows bad color, bad shape, bad font. --Juiced lemon 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When people create SVGs to replace bitmaps, and at the same time make changes to the look of the image, I so wish that they would explain and justify the changes. Otherwise, we will assume that they are f***-ups and vote "keep". The triangles have been changed from isoceles to equilateral without explanation, and the font is quite different on those that contain letters. — Erin (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my main issue with them was that they shouldn't have been jpeg to begin with... the low color images that they were, the artifacts stick out like a sore thumb.... hrm, maybe we can contact the person who made the SVGs? -Aknorals 10:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep User:Juiced lemon is perfectly right. This reproduction work has not been done in a good fashion. --Rtc 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Arguments see: User:Juiced lemon --ALE! 08:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lappi lääninvaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Lapin läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WhiteRose.jpg

This picture can't be in the Public Domain, because it obviously was taken by a German photographer in Germany. The photographer can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years by now (because he was alive in 1942 when the picture was taken) and there's no evidence that he released his picture into the PD. --88.134.45.6 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The anon's deletion logic is an argument from ignorance. The picture itself comes from the US Holocaust musuem, and is in all likelihood covered by the terms of the recently concluded agreement with them. Raul654 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may come from the Holocaust museum, but how does this museum have the right to release it into the PD? It's only PD if the author is dead for more than 70 years (which is impossible) or if he gave his permission. So who is the author? --88.134.45.6 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete H Museum is ignoring German copyrights --Historiograf 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete eindeutige Verletzung des deutschen Urheberrechtes 217.88.173.176 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot see a PD claim on USHMM'S picture page--Wiggum 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nobody cares about a photographer who have no proof. Probably, the Wehrmacht archived the negative, later it was seized by the US army. --Juiced lemon 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying "F**k copyright laws, I don't care about the author's rights" ? --88.134.45.6 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete copyvio. --Rtc 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Steschke 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Consider the likely context of the photo. The White Rose itself would not have taken such a dangerous photo. Therefore, it was taken by the Gestapo. Such a photographer deserves no consideration. If he disagrees, let him come forward.

OK, after a short google search i found the photographer. According to the de:Deutsches Historisches Museum (German historical museum) it was taken by Jürgen Wittenstein (today Dr. George J. Wittenstein) who was a member or a close confidant of the white rose - see here. And according to this website Wittenstein was alive as of 2005. So the photographer is not unknown and not a nazi who "deserves no consideration". --88.134.45.6 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a little likely that he donated or otherwise assigned his copyright to the US Holocaust Musuem (hence the reason for them hosting the picture). Raul654 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe he donated the picture. The problem is, that we don't know whether he did or not. The Holocaust Museum doesn't even credit him as the author of the picture. --88.134.45.6 07:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the USHMM website says " The text, images, audio and video clips, and other content on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Museum) Web site are protected by copyright and may also be subject to other restrictions. The Museum retains all rights, including copyright, in and to the text, images, audio and video clips, and other content on this Web site. Copyright and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals and entities other than or in addition to the Museum." --88.134.45.6 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete where is stated, that ushmm is PD? I only can find "Terms and Conditions for Use of Photo Archives Images - Individuals and institutions downloading images from the online Photo Archives catalog must contact the Photo Archives regarding terms and conditions of use.". And also I would say its (c), becouse no U.S.-Photographer created it. -- John N. (@ me) 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Satakunta vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Image:Satakunta.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skatole.png

Replaced by Image:Skatole.svg. --Andel 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Superseded --Panther 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PikachuANAplanepic.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted material (Pikachu of Pokemon). Possively copyvio. --163.139.215.193 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far not a derivative works, the main object is the tail of a plane. It may be a derivative work with only the ruder fin with the large pokemon visible but not at the current status of the image. --Denniss 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not matter how the photo is used? It is used in de:Pikachu. Kjetil_r 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Pikachu is clearly central to the picture. --Rtc 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
part of a larger picture, pikachu might be in the middle of the picture, but the tail of the aircraft is still the main object. And no it doesn't matter how and where it is used. -- Gorgo 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Länsi-Suomen läänin vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Länsi-Suomen läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Own images by Skreech

This images are untagged and have used only in the Italian userpage. IMHO they are not useful here. --Panther 08:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete This user's portraits clearly serve no purpose on Commons; they should be uploaded on the it: wiki. As for the others, I doubt they're useful for skateboarding/roller skating articles, given the poor resolution and lack of sharpness. Jastrow 11:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uudenmaan maakunnan vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Uusimaa.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: The colors are different.--GeorgHH 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heraldically it doesn't matter. --Hautala 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: The SVG image has ugly colors, and the drawing of the boat doesn't respect its different constructive parts. --Juiced lemon 09:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If it is not absolutely clear that it is an improvement, there's no harm keeping both versions. TheGrappler 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tampereen vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Tampere.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The SVG file looks like a simple auto-tracing. It's not nice. See the wings. --Panther 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DeutscheBahn gobeirne.jpg

Fotos des ICE sind als Geschmacksmuster gesetzlich geschützt. Eine gewerbliche Vermarktung ist nicht ohne Zustimmung der DB AG möglich. Außerdem muß bei Aufnahmen in Bahnhöfen eine Genehmigung vorliegen. 217.88.173.176 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Völlig richtig. --80.81.19.34 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aeron-seat.jpg

Marked as CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr page. -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then just delete it or tag it as {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}. An obvious case or not? --ALE! 16:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we ignore all possible Flickr "change of license" situations now, and just delete? Is that the case? pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what shall we do? We can not proof that the image was under a free license at the moment of uploading. So I think, it would be better to just delete the image. That does not only go for Flickr images, but for all images found on a personal homepage with images under a free license like CC-by-SA or PD. If we can not proff the change of license we should go the safe way and delete it. --ALE! 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nils Aas-Ekorn.jpg

Derivative work. The artist, Nils Aas, died in 2004. Kjetil_r 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misread that, it's the other way around. NielsF 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

Image:P-chan.jpg

lack of licensing info.Nikopoley尼可波里 POP-it! 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panzergrenadier.jpg Image:Panzer.jpg Image:RomMTN72x72.gif Image:EasternFrontIL-2.gif Image:EFCover240.jpg

all Lacking licensing info and source.Nikopoley尼可波里 POP-it! 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Equilibrium infinitesimal area.svg

wrong SVG → PNG conversion MADe 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No need to delete, just to fix. I have uploaded an improved version, but it still needs work. At least now it does display correctly if you view it in Firefox (your version didn't even do that). I have no idea what to do to make the wiki PNG conversion work. BTW, do the arrows have to be red? Are the differences in relation to Image:Equilibrium infinitesimal area.png intentional? — Erin (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki PNG conversion doesn't accept flowed text and the arrowheads, so you'll have to draw the arrowheads yourself (see for example: Image:Basketball court metric en.svg). NielsF 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I just did... NielsF 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, corrected version uploaded. NielsF 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it more, but you seem to have altered and removed information. For example, you took out the "dx" and "dy" text, and changed the direction of the arrows. You also decloned the arrows. — Erin (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, didn't take that dx and dy out on purpose, small error on my part. As for the cloning, simply couln't be bothered. The arrow direction wás intentional, because I tried to recreate the PNG. So fixed that in a new upload. Let's hear what MADe has to say about it. NielsF 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 06E.EMILIA 5-day track.gif

Uploading to Commons was a mistake, the active copy is on en.wikipedia. Superseded by now as well.--Keith Edkins 08:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Deletedeletionrequest by user--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Category:Gaston Lagaffe

All five of the images in this category fall under en:Wikipedia:Derivative works of a copyright comic strip. See also the Various Star Wars pictures precedent. The photo of the office is maybe debatable but the statues and figure are clear violations. Andrew Levine 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; delete. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Category:Peanuts (comic)

See Gaston Lagaffe example, above. Andrew Levine 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly agree it is clearly derivitive illustration of copyrighted work, though the photo of a billboard in a public place which includes a Peanuts character may be an allowable different case. -- Infrogmation 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Attention niels epting 01.png

Redundant to Image:Attention niels epting.svg // Liftarn

 Delete--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete It is still used on more than a hundred pages (mostly on the ru.wikipedia.org) please help to change the links. --ALE! 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supported by User Bricktop i have the png-version in ru.wikipedia changed to the svg. --GeorgHH 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is now still used on the following protected pages:
Anyone can help with these? We could then delete the png. --ALE! 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palestine occupation97.jpg

REASON: derivative, Coke artwork. i asked the author to reupload the pic but without the copyrighted artwork.

(BTW, I tagged it with copyvio but the user User:Museo8bits is removing all my tags, im not administrator, can someone explain to User:Museo8bits the policy of commons?, thanks.) --Martin Rizzo 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French stamps

Are these images may be uploaded here? And at any case, GFDL using is incorrect. --Panther 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helgoland flagge.png

Unused and superseded by a SVG Version of the flag. There is no more practical use for this image in the commons. --David Liuzzo 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:COS 09.JPG

screenshot is not old enough Mattes 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the Wikipedia article w:Carnival of Souls says it's PD. Hard to believe tough, not in the EU I think. NielsF 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Carnival of Souls is indeed public domain. (Ibaranoff24 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Alter Mann Nordäthiopien.jpg

Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung, es liegt keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung des Bilder vor. 84.63.118.33 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of personal rights, there's no declaration of consent of the depicted person for publication of the image (rough translation). NielsF 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image does not violate copyright, which is what concerns us. -- Ranveig 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no written permission. This is a personality rights issue, but we can't keep the picture without permission because the photographed person may also persecute the publisher (and not only the photographer).--Wiggum 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep "Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a German legal concept with does not have an exact analogue in common law, particularly when it comes to the requirement of consent. Hosting this photo on commons and using it in Wikipedia articles is not likely to require consent in most common law jurisdictions. Certain limited, specific uses of photographs of people may be problematic (under, for example, the laws relating to defamation or merchandising) but that is not a ground for deletion on Commons. Commons policy only requires that we be able to assign to people the right to use an image for all purposes under copyright law, which we can do here. Commons policy does not demand that we only host images that can be freely modified and used for all purposes under all applicable laws. And rightly so: if it were, we would have a big problem hosting - to give only one example - any out of copyright work due to the restrictions imposed by, for example, the author's rights to the integrity of his work under French law ("le droit au respect de l'intégrité de l'œuvre"). -- Arvind 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the central issues here: which copyright law should Commons try to abide to? Common law is one thing, the German law (and with it a lot of other EU countries since the harmonization) the other... NielsF 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't quite the point I was making. The point is that this is not even an issue of copyright law. This issue is brought about by an entirely different German legal rule, unconnected with copyright law or the copyright status of this image, and which is not the subject of EU harmonisation (at least, not yet). It would be different if it were prohibited by the law of the country where the photo was taken, but we can't possibly start deleting images because they violate some law somewhere in the world. -- Arvind 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As i understand en:Model release, what is in Germany "Recht am eigenen Bild" exists similarly in other countries.--Wiggum 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does not exist to the same extent as it does in Germany. You may find their work in progress of the University of Edinburgh law school's project on personality rights of interest. Additionally, as I said, as far as I understand it Commons only requires that the copyright in an image be freely licensable. Commons policies - very sensibly - do not require that every conceivable use of an image be permitted under other laws not related to its IP status before it can be uploaded. -- Arvind 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. As far as policy is concerned it seems that there was a debate before since on Commons:Licensing#Checklist is written: "Definitely not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent".--Wiggum 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be talking about sneaky photos (like the famous underwear pictures that were listed here some time ago), that is, "given their consent to be photographed" rather than talking about the requirement of specific consent for uploading the photo on wikipedia - at least, that's how I've always read it, and a search doesn't throw up any sign of a debate. A policy on personality rights would require at least as much detail as a policy on copyright, and I don't think a one-sentence policy can be intended to cover that. -- Arvind 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as per Arvind. As I remember it, the "people who have not given their consent" was spurred by an image of two women walking down a street who did not know they were being photographed. But I don't think there is any restriction when people know they are being photographed. / Fred Chess 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for the photographer. [...] The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or noncommercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States." (en:Model release) You need to make a difference; taking a photo does not means permission to publish. A written model release is required. See also [32]. --Rtc 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page en:Model release shows how Wikipedia articles are sometimes inaccurate. Better to look at http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html where it is described that editorial use doesn't need a release. This includes use in book or magazine, as opposed to commercial exploitations such as post-cards, adverts, or (political) statements.

Here is a quote:

So, to be clear: Newspapers, magazines, or other sources of news/editorial can use images for editorial (news) usage without a model release. (not my bolding)

If you were to be consistant with your arguments on the Wikimedia symbols, you'd see that this issue is unrelated to Wikimedia use.

Fred Chess 09:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this implies a somehow noncommercial license? Another question would be which law should apply. German jurisdiction is a little more stricter with that but i don't know how it is in all or most of the other countries.--Wiggum 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the exact context. "As for 'news,' here's the baseline premise: in the United States and other parts of the world where "free speech" is generally protected by law or constitution, the government cannot interfere with journalism and other forms of expression (opinion, art, etc., with many exceptions and limitations, of course). This sometimes trumps people's individual rights because news is deemed to be in the greater public interest, and people cannot stop pictures of themselves from being used in this context." That's exactly the way it is in German law, it's called 'relative Person der Zeitgeschichte'. Please understand that this exception can only be applied if there is undoubtly and objectively a 'greater public interest' in the picture. This clearly does not apply to this specific picture, in fact, it applies to hardly any picture at all. This picture would only be appropriate in an article about this specific person. By no means a picture becomes legal just because it's used in an editorial context. --Rtc 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rtc, it's the other way around. Let's start from the beginning. In common law, there is no equivalent to "Persönlichkeitsrecht". Model rights, therefore, only exist to the extent they are expressly granted by statute, or by jurisdiction-specific case law. The statutes of most jurisdictions only grant model rights if the image is used for advertising, selling or promoting goods or services. Take a look, for example, at the Californian statute. It is not, therefore, an exception. The photographed person only has model rights when the statute gives it to him or her, and the statute does not do so in relation to such use. I hope this explanation makes things clear. I know the protection is much stronger in Germany, but common law is different. If you take a look at the link I provided a few comments above, it should make things even clearer. -- Arvind 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's not start from the beginning, there is no reason for that. [33] is very specific, there needs to be a greater public interest. Show a court decision if you claim it's different. Ask any professional photographer, he will tell you that you are simply wrong. --Rtc 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Messenger v Gruner is a good decision with which to start. Read the reasoning carefully, and note particularly the way "public interest" is used. I suspect you may have misunderstood the signficance of the phrase, which is not uncommon amongst non-specialists because it can mean so many different things. What it means in this context is merely that the article must be on a matter of interest to the public, which is a very broad test, as the decision in Messenger should make clear, particularly given its facts. Joseph Finger v Omni Publications is of similar import. Each of these cites plenty of other cases which you can look up if you are interested, but these two ought to give you a good idea of how narrow the concept of personality rights is in common law. Note the very broad range of uses allowed by the law in the precedents cited in Messenger, and how slight the relationship between the article and the photo needs to be to be "genuine". If you have any further questions on this area of law, feel free to ask. -- Arvind 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not thinkable in Germany, but you have a point, they hold that "the 'newsworthiness exception' should be liberally applied", so according to this jurisdiction I agree that you are right. I request anyway that a policy be made and pictures with people be properly tagged as "no model release"/"model release, with permission given for ..." etc. just as is done for copyright, and we need to discuss whether, despite of the legality in some jurisdictions, we should accept the former. If only discussion would start that way (clear facts, ie, courts decisions) it would be much less of a hassle. --Rtc 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo Honda Moto.jpg

Image is primarily of corporate logo. Copyright violation per Commons:Derivative works. -- howcheng {chat} 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling. The logo is not protected by copyright, since it's eligible for design patent. --Rtc 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted by User:Bouncey2k. However I do not want to close the discussion as the issue does not seem to be solved. --ALE! 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the photo back. I was in a hurry and didn't know about this discussion. My opinion is that the logo is copyrighted. In Commons everyone can use and edit photos even for making money. But i can't take this logo to create something and sell it. Think about this. --Bouncey2k 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That you can't use the logo and display as your own does not automatically mean that it must be copyrighted. That's a restriction imposed by trademark law. It's something entirely different. Else we need to delete any article which has a trademarked word in it, such as en:SONY any many others. --Rtc 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot copyright words, but some logos can be protected. copyright.gov says:
How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.
So articles about sony or coca-cola are not a problem. /^81.229.39.230 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it doesn't say is that while the logo may in fact be restricted by copyright, that applies only to very few, those, which whouldn't be eligible for design patents as a lex specialis. But this logo clearly is. --Rtc 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 img 2449.jpg

It´s simple dark, not in use. --GeorgHH 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 img 2448.jpg

It´s simple dark, not in use. --GeorgHH 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Undistinguished photo, but properly licenced by uploader/photographer. Possibly of reference use to someone. Relevent category added. -- Infrogmation 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JudgePic -4.jpg and Attorney Jeffrey W. Steinberger

Source not properly indicated, other contributions of user where spam for the same attorney; furthermore no Wikipedia article about this man so I think it's outside of Commons:Project scope. NielsF 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rørvik kart.png

An old, ugly version of the map which were misspelled. With a town in the same region, but not in the same municipality with the misspelled name, this may lead to confusion. --Emuzesto 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Image:Annette von Droste-Hülshoff.jpg

I'm not clear that German currency is PD. Making this image a copyvio. Can someone find somewhere that clearly states that German currency IS public domain. --Megapixie 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read there, the de:Deutsche Bundesbank permits the publication of parts of german currency as long as it can not be used to falsify. --Steschke 06:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a stronger argument than Steschke's. The picture is in the public domain because the copyright of the template painting (I guess [34]) has expired. The trivial colorization is not enough to get a new copyright. --Rtc 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Escudo Ávila.PNG

The uploader says he has created this image "based upon" a copyrighted one. I think it's a clear plagiarism. --Dodo 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the design of the shield should be PD (ages old), this is just a bad copy of the original website so  Delete. NielsF 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:G-achilles-trojan-wars-bb-l.jpg

The site where the image comes from (http://www.prometheus-imports.com/) is a commercial site under copyright: "all rights reserved". So licence seems to be wrong. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Desk mammoth.jpg

Image mocked up solely for the purpose of supporting a hoax at Wikipedia. Uncle G 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hygie - buste 1970.jpg

Source is unreachable, but PD-old seems to be unjustifiable. And PD-art can't apply because it is a 3D object. --Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Etelä-Suomen läänin vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded Etelä-Suomen läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kanta-Hämeen maakunnan vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Kanta-Häme.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep a lynx have tufted ears, no snail antennas. --Juiced lemon 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PA PNG Shields

  1. Image:291.PNG
  2. Image:PA route 137.PNG
  3. Image:PA route 320.PNG
  4. Image:PA route 332.PNG
  5. Image:PA route 352.PNG
  6. Image:PA route 413.PNG
  7. Image:PA route 420.PNG
  8. Image:PA route 452.PNG
  9. Image:PA route 611.PNG
  10. Image:PA route 63.PNG
  11. Image:PA route 73.PNG

All images have been orphaned and replaced by SVGs (Image:PA-291.svg, Image:PA-137.svg, Image:PA-320.svg, Image:PA-332.svg, Image:PA-352.svg, Image:PA-413.svg, Image:PA-420.svg, Image:PA-452.svg, Image:PA-611.svg, Image:PA-63.svg, Image:PA-73.svg, respectively). Also, the deletion of these images will empty Category:Pennsylvania State Routes (which is a duplicate of Category:Pennsylvania Route shields) and should be deleted as well. --TwinsMetsFan 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The SVG images are indisputably the better ones. --Juiced lemon 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I created the PNG images (since I couldn't make SVGs), and am glad someone saw the need and made SVGs. The purpose is served, and I vote delete. MPD01605 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kainuun vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Image:Kainuu.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weidenhausen (Gladenbach), Hesse, Germany

Old deletion request from the author of the page (19:21, 28. Mai 2006). Contents of the page are also in Category:Weidenhausen (Gladenbach), Germany. --GeorgHH 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not see any reason why to delete this page. --ALE! 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Nobel Prize and all medal photos within

All three images are photos of the medal and are marked as PD-self/PD-user. The photos themselves might be PD, but their subject is not; they are derivative works of a copyrighted work, therefore copyvios. The medal is a copyrighted artistic work by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg (1873–1966) [35]. See the Copyright and Trademark information:

Permission in writing is required for:

Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se.

If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.

I considered speedy deleting them as copyvios, or tagging as copyvios, but as they are used many times on many projects, I'd like to be sure I am not mistaken. (Note that Image:NobelPrizeMedal.jpg has already been tagged as nosource for the very same reason.)

--Mormegil 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Historiograf 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Rtc 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piglit.jpg

Image is a derivative work of a copyrighted figure and thus a copyright violation. --Angr 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piglit.jpg is a figure made by a well known Wikipedian, with featured pictures to her name. Please point me at the image or thing copied - thanks. --Gordo 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Which copyrighted figure ? --Juiced lemon 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) --88.134.45.6 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is not a copyrighted figure, and a teddy bear with a 'W' on it either. --Juiced lemon 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images of the character of Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh are copyrighted until 1 January 2047 (70 years after E. H. Shepard's death). This is a derivative work of Shepard's drawings and therefore a copyright violation. Angr 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shepard's drawings were inspired by stuffed animals. Stuffed animals are not derivature works from his drawings. There are numberous tales with pig characters, and many of them are in the public domain. You don't explain why this picture should be Piglet and not an another character, or any pig. --Juiced lemon 13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for deletion would be sound if this is a derivative of the Piglet character. However, nomenclature aside, this does appear to be merely an unidentifiable stuffed pig. TheGrappler 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an answer to both the above comments, the stuffed toy looks unmistakably like Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh, not like any generic stuffed pig. This is borne out by the fact that the image is being used to illustrate articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh character in Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Hungarian; see its CheckUsage. Up until yesterday, it was also being used at English Wikipedia to illustrate the article on Piglet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29&oldid=65350720). Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a circular argument. If I name Piglet a stuffed hedgehog, of course it will be a dressed Piglet and so a copyrighted figure! Actually, the toy on the picture doesn't like as a pig, and therefore doesn't like as a special pig. --Juiced lemon 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is so ungrammatical I can't understand what you're trying to say, but my point is that the picture is being used to illustrate articles about the Winnie-the-Pooh character "Piglet", therefore it is perceived by many people as being an illustration of that character, therefore it is a derivative work of the original illustration of that character. If this image is not intended to illustrate that character, then it should be removed from all those articles. Angr 08:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There is enough originality so that it is not really a derivative --Astrokey44 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still identifiable as Piglet, so it's derivative. Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piglit's front is sewn up reversed. It is therefore a representation that has deviated from the original. If there is an original. --Gordo 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the drawings are the original. There are plenty of 3D toys that are derivative of 2D drawings, like Mickey Mouse dolls, Opus the Penguin dolls, etc. This is no different from them, except that this toy isn't actually made by Disney (who now owns the rights to Shepard's drawings), meaning that not only is this photo a copyright infringement, so is the toy in the photo. Angr 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The toy was bought from a shop. I don't see how that infringes any copyright, since it must have been under some licence agreement? --Gordo 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Commons:Derivative works. If you take a picture of a toy, the original copyright of that toy remains. Photographs of copyrighted toys, like copyrighted works of art, are not acceptable on Commons. Angr 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in the category Battleship Bismarck [36]

Most of this Pictures came from Naval Historical Center. They were copied from german Reports and it is nearly impossible that all Photographers (if they are known at all) gave their permission vor PD. The named Author is false. On the original Site [37] it is written "identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach", not author!--WerWil 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of that stuff ist covered by the deletion request concerning DKM Bismarck. We should see what remains in the category after the above request(s). --Wiggum 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:GrafZep1.jpg

No reason to believe this is expired Crown Copyright, as claimed. The BBC website obtained the photo from AP, as clearly indicated on the image. (I have my doubts that AP are the genuine copyright-holders, but there's no reason at all to believe it is a British government work!) Incidentally, even if it had been produced by the BBC, it would be copyright to the BBC, not Crown Copyright. TheGrappler 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I wonder a bit, wheather this image was made by the british government and also I doubt that bbc or AP images are crown copyrighted. -- John N. (@ me) 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The photo is most likely from a Nazi propaganda archive and if the image were found in Britsh post-war archives, I think BBC would've used those archives instead one from AP. --193.217.52.226 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong support Keep the picture. It is a part of history and claiming now copyrights on this picture may sound too bogus. Nobody will benefit of the CR, but by removing the picture many people won't have the opportunity to see this part of history. Or are people trying to enforce the copyrights just because is a German Nazi picture?

Just to clarify: the reason for suggested deletion is that there is no reason to believe this image is out of copyright. Some very old images are still under copyright (I have specific examples dating to the 1890s that I am not able to upload for another 10 years, due to copyright). Discussion here is based not on usefulness or historical value, but purely the copyright issue. No evidence has been produced so far that suggests the image is out of copyright, therefore we are forced to assume it is not, in which case it has to be deleted. TheGrappler 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Rtc 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No crown copyright. --ALE! 09:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Iridium-mandala.jpg

REASON Incorrect license, should be non dirivitive non commercial --Komra 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (cc-nc-nd license) --ALE! 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Penis .jpg and Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg and Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg

REASON Images are used for vandalism by IP addresses and other accounts, and have limitted usage on other Wikipedias. --Ryulong 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they are widely used. Kjetil_r 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have listed these here because they were recently utilized in major vandalism at the English Wikipedia's daily featured article, and vandalism at templates that are used in that article to bypass temporary sprotection. There needs to be a way to watch for the inclusion of images such as these, among others that are often utilized in vandalism in the Wikimedia project. Ryulong 00:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Watch yes, deletion no. (Just about anything can be used to vandalise). -- Ranveig 11:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--it's been largely used for vandalism recently. It's just too easy for someone to find this picture and then add it to templates; it's been added to a Pokemon template all morning, which is making it appear frequently on all Pokemon pages. --71.227.248.167 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Images of human genitalia on Commons is necessary; they can be useful on many projects. Vandalism has to be fought in other ways than removing media from here. Cnyborg 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Cnyborg. NielsF 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep DGottschall 1 August 2006 (UTC)

keep Or should we delete also all Hitler-Pics, Naziflags or Mardi Gras Pics, when Vandale use it? In DE-Wiki i know only one Vandale which used sometimes this ore other images. --Fg68at de:Disk 08:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep We should delete the hitler pics because they are copyvios, but these here can stay. --Rtc 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! 22:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Ano.jpg

REASON Image is utilized in way too many ways for vandalism instead of constructive edits on the Wikimedia project. --Ryulong 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ano.jpg is used on 6 pages in 5 projects. Keep --Kjetil_r 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above on the penis pictures. Ryulong 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- Ranveig 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It's quite gross, however vandalism in en.wikipedia is not a reason to delete this from Commons. Fight your vandalism battles there but don't come here to complain. NielsF 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Pantone_color_chart

Pantone has written to us and requested deletion. They consider our use a copyright violation. --UninvitedCompany 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could be eligible for copyright. No originality. --Rtc 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The object of copyright violation is unknown. --Juiced lemon 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Pantone has written to us, who's us, where's the letter? is it a letter like this: [38]? How can they state it's a copyright violation? NielsF 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. While this is a good resource to have for us flag drawers, if Pantone wrote to use as said to take it down, then we should  Delete take it down. We will still use Pantone colors for many of the flags we have, but we will use outside sources. As for "where's the letter," there are many letters that are sent to the Foundation that we do not see, and I trust UC's judgement very highly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have no reason to delete this page which gives information about Pantone color chart. If it contains copyrighted components, these components must be removed, no more. I suggest to replace the removed components by links, in particular about rival color systems (example : http://www.visibone.com/). --Juiced lemon 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

previous discussion for reference -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

restored by ALE! 06:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (discussion is not finished yet, new arguments)[reply]

Image:Hayat-17.JPG

Was already listed for deletion, but declared as finished when "allowance for publishing is given by the head of the family clan (my friend Sattor, the grandfather)" was added. However, this claim is not falsifiable. I don't see a written model release. --Rtc 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pro the enforcement of personal rights, but not pro to be annoying about it. Dobschütz seems really to be befriended with Sattor (Image:Hayat-02.JPG), so I think we can believe him. At least the legal responsibility is with Dobschütz, not with us, should that have been a false claim. I mean, what do you expect? An e-mail from Sattor@yahoo.uz with an allowance? Is this worthier than the affirmation of the uploader Dobschütz? Or a little slip of paper with scrawly cyrillic Uzbek letters confirming the allowance? --::Slomox:: >< 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"the legal responsibility is with Dobschütz, not with us" You must consider that Commons wants to offer pictures to anyone. As far as the usage here is concerned, indeed Dubschütz has the responsibility, but when somebody else re-uses the picture, much of the reponsibility is on his side. Can Commons accept pictures which may be a significant risk for re-users? IMO, Commons should offer re-users only pictures which are relatively safe to use. What if somebody uses the picture in a way which Sattor dislikes? There should really be a written model release defining exactly and explicitly which use is permitted, else such pictures are not in any way safe to use and anything can happen if you do. Commons is lacking a clear separation of copyright and personal rights, which are entirely independent. We definitely need personality right templates (concerning personality rights, may the picture be used commercially? for advertising? in pornographic contexts? full model release given? May it be modified?) in addition to the copyright templates so you can see how the picture can be used copyright-wise and how it can be used personality-right-wise. --Rtc 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commons policy at the moment only covers copyright. We need a very serious policy debate before we extend it to cover personality rights and - in particular - start requiring a written release for every photo featuring a person (and, by extension, deleting photos which do not have releases). I, for one, would be quite solidly against an extension. Let's not forget a few points:
  • the primary purpose of commons is acting as a central repository for images to be used in Wikipedia projects, not as a central repository for images for the world generally.
  • copyright has a special status on Commons and on Wikipedia which other rights - including personality rights - don't. The reason we are so worried about copyright on commons is that we license things under the GFDL (or compatible licenses), which is a license of copyright. We must therefore have the ability to license the rights we claim to license. The GFDL expressly does not apply to other rights, or make any warranties about any other legal provisions affecting the licensee's ability to use the licensed document or, for that matter, about whether pictures are "safe to use" for any purpose. Indeed, "safe to use" is affected not only by personallity rights, but potentially by any of hundreds of other laws. There is therefore absolutely no reason to give the same importance to personality rights that we do to copyright, unless we are changing the purpose for which Commons exists (which, I suspect, would need the Foundation's consent) and unless we intend to give equal importance to every law that might potentially restrict an image's use.
-- Arvind 12:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we should use especially strict rules when it comes to children. In this case i would like to see a written permission regardless of the copyright status. Agree with the proposal of fixing this issue by policy.--Wiggum 14:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Image:Leto.jpg

A google image search reveals that this is a widely used image on the web. I do not belive en:User:Xephyrwing's {{GFDL-self}} claim. Kjetil_r 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC

They're saying "To the best of their knowledge" obviously as a rather euphemistic excuse for their copyright violations (see #All pictures of DKM Bismarck). Commons should never accept any pictures declared in "good" faith to be PD by some alleged authority, but only pictures for which a clear legitimation from the original author exists. --Rtc 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination, but keep in mind that not all pictures tagged are cpoyvios --Schlendrian 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moving-camera.gif

why PD? you need no copyright notice to claim copyrights --Schlendrian 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, the site doesnt say they created the image anyway --Astrokey44 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --- gildemax 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep free clipart available everywhere [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] ...etc Pedant 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete being available everywhere doesn't make anything free, in fact, most likely these are simply copyright violations, too; three of links ([46] [47] [48]) you cited are actually wikipedia derived content, so they got the picture from here, also you cited pages with the picture and the picture they embed themselves ([49] → [50], [51] → [52], [53] → [54]). Removing these dupes and wikipedia derived pages from your list yields only [55] and [56]. BTW, Pedant is the uploader and knows where he took it from. --Rtc 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1948london.jpg

I don't see a reason why this logo should not be copyrighted. --Matt314 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more by the same uploader:
--Matt314 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Norðurlandahúsið í Føroyum - the Nordic House in the Faroe Islands.JPG

Copyvio, as far as I can tell. The Nordic Council copyright template (Template:Norden.org) states that: "This is a photograph from the official Nordic Council website, and was uploaded to Commons no later than mid 2005. [...] The Nordic Council has since changed its copyright policy and forbids commercial use. Any new images uploaded under this licence can be speedily deleted." However, this image has been uploaded in January 2006, so unless the uploader otherwise got permission to upload it to the Commons under a free license, the image should be deleted. -- Schnee 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

Image:Yes.png

✓

Superseded by Image:Yes check.svg, if an image is really necessary. In fact, what is wrong with simply using the character "✓" (displayed to the right) for most purposes? — Erin (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skjaldarmerki Dalvikurbyggdar.png

Superseded by Image:ISL Dalvikurbyggdar COA.svg. — Erin (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:State Coat of Arms of the USSR (1958-1991 version).jpg

Superseded by Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg — Erin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last we need is a masturbation video. That's not educational in any way. --Denniss 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. Why is a video clip of an ejaculation not educational? Unless it violates Florida law, I think it should be kept. -- Schnee 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Where is the Masturbation in this video ??? Masturbation, by en.wikipedia.org own definition is as follows : "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs, most often to the point of orgasm". Where is the Manual Excitation of the penis in this video ??? Please go to the "Ejaculation" page at wikipedia.org and click on the Discussion Tab and read that discussion carefully. The still photograph that was on that page that the video replaced was a photoshopped image of a man masturbating and ejaculating and was obviously originally intended to be an erotic photograph. This video is an Educational depiction of Ejaculation ONLY, that compliments the Diagram and Article on that page. Consider the Categories that the video is in here at the Commons ....Biology, Reproduction, Sexology, Penis, Semen, Video (it is a video), Male reproductive system, and Sexual intercourse. All Categories where an Educational video of Ejaculation ONLY would be appropriate. There are no sex acts involved in this video and no manual manipulation or stimulation of the genitals in this video. Therefore, it is NOT Masturbation. Considering the Categories that it is included in here at the Commons and the nature of the video itself, this video could indeed be used for Educational and Teaching purposes in those Categories. Ima learner 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The video is useful. — Kjetil_r 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Oh dear, these people do love to upload pix of their private bits. Educational, though, I suppose. — Erin (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poe Sisters.JPG and Image:Poe Sisters 2.JPG

Undocumented license. I also doubt that Nintendo has put sprites from their games into public domain. --Pred 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg

The same picture is here and here and here and here. Clearly it's a news agency photo. The claims of the uploader de:Bild Diskussion:BenediktXVI.jpg are purely ad hoc and thus not credible. --Rtc 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims to have a oral permission by the photographer. I am not sure if we should belive him, it seems somewhat suspicious. Has there been any previous problems with Benutzer:Geoprofi? Kjetil_r 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These claims are ad hoc and I don't believe him. Everyone can make such claims how do you want to test them? Commons doesn't accept dubious oral permissions. Written permission of the standard email template sent to OTRS by the original photographer is necessary. I never had any case where such a claim was not a lie (see also below #Image:Sex.jpg). --Rtc 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the poor quality if this should be a professional made photograph. Regardless of that i agree with Rtc that we should only accept testable permissions which means written form.--Wiggum 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete ACK Rtc --Historiograf 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Morguefile

{{Morguefile}} redirects to non-commercial but since some of the pictures are heavily used I list them here after beeing reverted. --Matt314 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is no reason to list the template/photos here. The redirect to {{Noncommercial}} is sufficient and the file will be handled there. To list a photo here, means that there is a need for discussion. This is not the case with these photos. --ALE! 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The COM:VP discussion recommended listing them here, so that the images could be orphaned before being whacked. Your vandalism of sister projects is not helpful. As far as you marking it as a closed discussion, your reactions such as marking the only plausible discuassion area as "closed" indicate that you should not be entrusted with your current role. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: What vandalism of sister projects are you refering to?
Second: Images from morguefile are noncommercial: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/terms.php (point 2.1). Period. No need for discussion really. So why should we list the images here? It is an obvious case. --ALE! 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Wer nichts macht, macht auch nichts falsch. (English: Who does nothing, makes consequently nothing wrong.)

Image:Kielitynkäkuva.jpg

Unused and superseded by Kielitynkäkuva.png. --Hautala 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aristophanes1.jpg

No source; PD-old seems uncorrect (is the author of photography died since more than 70 years?) and PD-art can't apply on 3D objects. The same image (where this one comes from) is to be deleted on WP en:. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ciudad Real (catedral).jpeg

This image is claimed to be cc-by-sa-1.0. It comes from World66. The uploader argues that "the licensor chose that attribution be given to the company in publishing the image in that manner on their site" and continues: "there is no reason whatsoever to consider the image does not fulfill the license terms." [57]. I, on the other hand, believe that whoever uploaded the image to World66 may not have been the author or at least we have no way of knowing. Uploading an image with a by-license and then not telling who to credit for it, seems unlikely. Therefore, I think we should treat this image like a possible copyvio with no source and eventually delete it. -Samulili 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It's indeed Cc-by-sa 1.0. See the upload form, so whoever uploaded it agreed on that license (like we do with text, it's a kind of wiki). If phptographer field was left blank, it doesn't affect the licensing. However, was the uploader the photographer? It seems to me more like a scanned postcard than a photo. Platonides 11:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samsung al 3GSM World Congress (Barcelona 2006).JPG

REASON: Derivative work from a poster ad. --Martin Rizzo 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1901

REASON: Every single image in this article is NOT from the year 1901. I left a note on User:Emijrp's talk page and reverted it as a redirect to Category:1901. Emijrp reverted it, and left a message on my talk page with an excuse. I say that using a 2005 licence plate to illustrate the year 1901, just because state mandated licence plates were mandated that year, is a very poor excuse for an illustration for 1901. ( I think Emijrp's other contributions need to be double checked if the user not only cannot accept that only 1901 images should illustrate the year 1901 article on Commons but insists on having an article only with images from other years even after that fact has been pointed out to them.) --Infrogmation 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I put "Media related with the year 1901" I mean "images that shows events in 1901". I understand your reason if the articles is called "1901 images". I think also that if George Bush was elected in 2001, and we only have got an image from 1999, to put that image in 2001 article isn't a madness because 2001 article want to show the notable persons in 2001. Cheers. --Emijrp 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a request for more sensible gallery editing. How would deletion of the article history help here? Jkelly 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I requested more sensible gallery editing, and have been rebuffed. I would favor discussion on guidelines. In the mean time, an article entitled "1901" which consists entirely of images from years other than 1901 (including one off by more than 100 years) seems misleading, IMO worse than useless. I have no objection to year pages consisting of images from the year in question; the current page is 100% misinformation. -- Infrogmation 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt request anything, you destroyed the article by transforming in a redirect. If you aren't against this kind of articles why don't you improve it? If you want a category or article like "1901 paintings" or "1901 stamps", create "1901 images", but in articles years I think that we must to show what happened in that year with old photos or with new photos. --Emijrp 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I "destroyed" nothing. I reverted with an explanation, and you counter reverted. I thought that it should be obvious that images in an article page should be specific to the title topic (as opposed to only images which it is possible to make a broad suggestion are somehow tangentially related). Clearly I was wrong, and we need some sort of guidelines or project page discussion, and deletion requests is not the place for that. Perhaps others have suggestions on the best place for such discussions? -- Infrogmation 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Infrogmation. For example, the picture of Boxer forces was taken on 1900, and as a result must be transfered to the 1900 page. --Juiced lemon 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I agree that the selection of images is a bit odd, and reasons for why they are there -- such as the license plate -- should be given. However, with some work, articles for years such as these could become excellent. Illustrating articles on years, for instance, would become a lot easier. -- Ranveig 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antalyaally1.jpg

Deleted from en-wiki for being probably copyvio (see en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 23). -- howcheng {chat} 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete (and fixed link to en: deletion listing) -- Infrogmation 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg-Harburg B73

I have created this article, but it´s unnecessary - only one picture available. --GeorgHH 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hw imagine.jpg and Image:Imagine.jpg

Images are not in jpeg format (maybe photoshop?) --Tomia 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image got by an illegal way; ballots cannot be taken out from polling stations, but I took out a ballot paper and scanned it. I, the author, apologize my mistake and request the deletion of this image. （In Japanese: 不正な手段（投票用紙の持ち出しは禁止されていますが、持ち出してスキャンしてしまいました）で取得した画像。投稿者として誤りをお詫びし、画像を削除していただきたいと思います）--Tamago915 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney

REASON: most images are derivative from copyrighted works (should i tag the pics one by one?). --Martin Rizzo 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there seem to be some apparently legitimate non copyright derivative pictures in the category (eg Image:Multiplane camera.jpg, I fear a blanket deletion of the entire cat and subcats is not warrented, even though that would be less work than sorting out the problem images (which may be the majority). -- Infrogmation 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

Template:SPDFraktion

It's a pure press license ("Der Nutzer des Fotos erklärt sich durch Klick des Buttons "OK" mit folgender Vereinbarung einverstanden: Das Foto darf nicht ohne den Quellen-Vermerk weitergegeben oder veröffentlicht werden. Der Quellen-Vermerk muss gut leserlich im Bild integriert werden oder unmittelbar neben dem Foto angegeben sein. Quelle: spdfraktion.de") [58]. Beyond such use, it does not explicitly permit redistribution, commercial use and derivative work, and, as we all know, all that is not permitted explicitely is forbidden by default. The according claims on the template are solely the invention of the template author. --Rtc 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Using a picture in a newspaper is commercial use. You can be shure that the newspapers also create derivative work by cropping, adjusting white balance etc. Then they redistribute it by selling their archive DVDs. I see this agreement as equal to cc-by-2.0 which is a legitime license. --Ikiwaner 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply wrong. A press license is a press license. So it permits redistribution, commercial use and derivative work only to the extend that it is needed for press use, so clearly not "for any purpose" as the template has written in bold letters. It is not equal to Template:Cc-by-2.0. Get them to put a CC-BY tag on their website as is the case with Agência Brasil if you want to keep – that should be easy if you are right, shouldn't it? We had this discussion again and again. What would not be permitted for these pictures is selling them on their own or similar things (making a calendar, etc.). En.wikipedia labels press photos even as only fair use. Press licenses are not free as in freedom, period. --Rtc 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of helping to clarify the situation of 200 useful pictures (may they be used on a calendar too?) you do a deletion request and let the others do the work. I don't like your proceeding. I will ask for explicit cc-by license. --Ikiwaner 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of provinding proper licencing informatin the respective uploaders did sloppy work and let others fix it. That's the point. Delete while there is no definite license.--Wiggum 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. See my comment below. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Die SPD-Fraktion hat diese Bilder der Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt. Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite. Ich bekam folgende E-Mail von Kerstin Villalobos, zuständig für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: auch nach nochmaliger Rückversicherung bei den Vertragsaushandelnden: grünes Licht, wir haben die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte (bis auf Film und 1/1 Plakat, aber das -wie gesagt- können wir aufgrund der Qualität der hochgeladenen Bilder auschließen) und geben sie hiermit an Wikipedia weiter. --JuergenL ✈ 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Wenn's jemand übersetzen will darf er das gerne, ich schaff das heute abend nicht mehr ;-)[reply]
Hallo Jürgen, 'an wikipedia' reicht eben nicht. Wir brauchen eine Lizenz 'für jedermann'. Wikipedia ist da garnicht nicht relevant, alleine dass das Wort in ihrer Antwort auftaucht, zeigt deutlich, dass sie die Natur der Sache nicht erfasst haben. Dürfen die Bilder völlig frei weiterverbreitet, verändert und, auch einzeln, kommerziell genutzt werden, von jedermann? Ich glaube nicht, denn das steht im Konflikt zur Aussage "Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite." 'für jedermann' geht entweder ganz oder garnicht, nicht für Wikipedia so, für die Besucher der Webseite anders, sondern nur auf gleiche Weise für jedermann. Bitte versteh den Unterschied. Sie sollen ein CC-PD, oder CC-BY, oder CC-BY-SA-Schild auf ihrer Webseite anbringen – Agencia Brasil schafft das ja auch – oder eine Einverständniserklärung an OTRS schicken. Ich glaube diesen Aussagen einfach nicht, die man problemlos im Streitfall auch anders auslegen könnte. --Rtc 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Die zuständigen haben es schon richtig verstanden und meiner Meinung nach auch richtig formuliert. Sie geben uns die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte. Diese können wir auch weitergeben. Soll ich dir die Kontaktadresse von Fr. Villalobos geben? Dann kannst du versuchen eine genauere Lizenz zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jürgen hat sehr wohl nachgefragt, bevor die Bilder hochgeladen wurden. Ich habe die von ihm erhaltene Einverständniserklärung auf der Diskussionsseite hinterlegt. „...die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist (...) erlaubt“ sollte uns Grund genug sein, die Bilder bedenkenlos zu verwenden. Die hier betriebene Paragraphenreiterei nervt mich, ich hoffe, das ist nun erledigt. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man hat hier nur leider wieder den Fall, dass diese Formulierung interpretierbar ist. Ähnlich gelagert war das Spiegel-Cover, welches letztlich gelöscht wurde. Ich hatte damals zwar für behalten optiert, jedoch sind die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen hier eine restriktive Interpretation (nämlich: Nutzung nur bei Wikipedia, keine kommerzielle Nutzung, Veränderung etc.pp.) anzusetzen absolut nachvollziehbar: wir müssen im Sinne eines wie auch immer gearteten Qualitätsstandards die freie Lizenz der Bilder sicherstellen, um auch für Nachnutzer Sicherheit zu schaffen. Das heisst, dass die Willenserklärung des Urhebers so eindeutig wie möglich sein muss - es reicht halt nicht "Ihr könnt die Bilder bei Wikipedia frei verwenden" (schon der Hinweis auf WP indiziert eigentlich, dass keine CC-Lizenz gemeint sein kann) sondern es muss schon explizit "Ja, die Bilder können als CC-BY verwendet werden" sein. Es gibt doch Formulierungsvorlagen für solche Anfragen, warum verwendet man die nicht? Alternativ könnten die Rechteinhaber auch ein CC-BY-Tag auf ihrer Website plazieren.--Wiggum 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JuergenL, die zuständigen haben es mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit eben nicht richtig verstanden, sonst hätten sie sich nicht so ausgedrückt und würden auch keine widersprüchlichen Angaben auf der Webseite machen. Die Antwort an Ikiwaner ist noch deutlicher, dass es sich hier lediglich um eine Lizenz für die Verwendung in der Wikipedia handelt. Zwei Möglichkeiten: a) Sie machen ein CC-Lizenzschild auf ihre Seite, b) die Bilder werden gelöscht. So Trucksereien können wir uns jedenfalls nach dem in der Vergangenheit erlebten nicht erlauben. Wiggum: Ich halte die Klausel "von jedermann" für die wichtigste, die bei der erteilung der Lizenz genannt werden muss. also, "Ja, die Bilder können von jedermann unter CC-BY verwendet werden" z.B. --Rtc 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da ich mehrmals mit Fr. Villalobos telefoniert habe weiß ich, dass zumindest Sie es verstanden hat. Daher sollte es auch kein Problem sein, diesen von Rtc gewünschten Zusatz "von jedermann" zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telefonieren: Auch das hatten wir schon, bei der CDU. Trotzdem haben sie's nicht kapiert. Versuch bitte sie dazu zu überreden, ein CC-Schild bei den Bildern auf ihrer Webseite anzubringen und wenn Du Dir irgendwelche Erklärungen geben lässt, dann sollte es die Einverständniserklärung an ORTS sein, nicht nochmal so ein halbgares Formulierungsgewurschtel. --Rtc 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weil du diese Einverständniserklärung geschrieben hast ist sie genau das was wir hier brauchen? Wenn du der Meinung bist dann frag doch bitte selbst bei der SPD nach oder lösch die Bilder. Ich hab mir schon genug Arbeit mit diesen Bildern gemacht und werde nicht noch mehr Zeit damit verschwenden. --JuergenL ✈ 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, sie verlinkt auf die offizielle Vorlage. Meine ist nur eine Überarbeitung davon und Anleitung dazu. Merkwürdig, immer wenn diese Vorlage mit der umfassenden Aufklärung kommt, dann ziehen die Lizenzbehaupter den Schwanz ein. Wie kommt das nur? Ich glaube, wir wissen beide ganz genau, dass die SPD diese Einverständniserklärung nicht abgeben würde und die Bilder deshalb wohl leider gelöscht werden müssen. Immer diese dümmlichen Versuche, faktische Presselizenzbilder irgendwie im angeblichen Interesse der Enzyklopädie zu behalten. Ich kann nur nochmal deutlich betonen, dass die Freiheit der Enzyklopädie zuerst kommt, dann erst ihre inhaltliche Qualität. Wenn wir Pressebilder akzeptieren, schwächen wir unsere Position. Anders können wir sagen: Wer eine wirkliche freie Lizenz erteilt, der darf ein Bild in der Wikipedia haben, wer das nicht tut, ist im Nachteil. --Rtc 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die offizielle Einverständniserklärung (auch in englischer Übersetzung hier auf Commons verfügbar) wurde ursprünglich von mir formuliert (nicht von Rtc). Rtc hat aber voll und ganz recht, dass uns windelweiche gutgemeinte Erlaubnisse NICHT nützen. --Historiograf 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich denke, da es hier um etwa 200 Fotos von wichtigen Personen geht, sollten wir nicht einfach forfait geben. Um ganz kurz zusammenzufsassen: Auch ich würde es begrüssen, wenn die SPD eine klare CC-Lizenz abgeben würde. Auch ich bin der Meinung, dass man Bildbeiträge von Organisationen, die eine Genehmigung an Wikipedia geben, hier nicht annehmen sollte. In diesem Streit geht es aber um etwas anderes:
  1. Darf man Bilder annehmen, wenn man bloss sicher ist, dass der Rechteinhaber einer commons-kompatiblen Lizenz zustimmt, aber keinen expliziten schriftlichen Text hat? Konkret: Reicht Die Bilder dürfen frei verwendet werden oder braucht es die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden?
  2. Dürfen wir Bilder von Leuten annehmen, wo wir annehmen müssen, dass sie von Urheberrecht nicht sehr viel verstehen? Reicht eine Interpretation unsererseits, dass der Rechteinhaber die Bilder nicht nur an uns lizenziert, die Bilder verändert und kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen?
Ich persönlich bejahe beide Fragen beherzt. Wer bestimmte Formulierungen auf der Homepage der deutschen SPD-Bundestagsfraktion verlangt, setzt die Messlatte zu hoch. Ich verstehe auch, wenn ein Sachbearbeiter ob Rtcs Einverständniserklärung kalte Füsse kriegen sollte. Ferner hat mir ein Blick auf rtc's Diskussionsseite geholfen, seinen Löschantrag in den richtigen Kontext zu setzen. --Ikiwaner 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brasília - Praça dos três poderes.jpeg

Moved it from german wikipedia, but it's a press photo too. There seems to be some relation to Agencia Brasil, but no CC tag is on the pages. Perhaps you can get them to do this, too. --Rtc 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agencia Brasil seems to be a subagency of Radiobras. The logo of Agencia Brasil is clearly displayed on the right top of the page linked from the image ([59]). Furthermore, when trying to search the picture on the http://agenciabrasil.gov.br site (busca: Banca de Imagens, searched for the term Praça dos três poderes, you get a notice stating (roughly translated): Attention: we are busy migrating our contents to our new site. To search images produced before the 28th of june, click here. If you click you go to the archives, where the old images (up to 2004) can be found. So at least not delete until it's clear that a) this is just a temporary thing, as the website seemes to state and b) it's clear that Radiobras is something else than Agencia Brasil (which I don't think). Seen that earlier debate about this template and subsequent communication with Agencia Brasil led them to slap a CC license on their pictures, considering this picture has the same copyright texts as all of the current pictures had before, considering that Agencia Brasil is a subagency of Radiobras, considering that they state they are migrating their content to a new structure, this leads me to the conclusion that the original license text (© Todas as fotos poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte e o nome do repórter and O uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre. De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.) should be considered the same as the cc-by-2.5-Brasil license as used by Template:Agencia Brasil. NielsF 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaahumanu.jpg

This is a painting by Herb Kawainui Kane (pronounced Kah-nay), a currently living hawaiian painter whose livelihood is dependent on sale of his art. His site claims that images are all rights reserved. Painting details at http://hawaiiantrading.com/cgi-bin/mivavm?/store/merchant.mvc+Screen=PROD&Product_Code=hk-276&Category_Code=herb-kane&Store_Code=hieyes


The image page does not mention the painters name, nor the fact that it was painted recently. It asserts a contradictory statement that the image was released into the public domain, but is contracted by the limitation "for educational and historical purposes". It is either Public domain or it isn't. While it is concievable that Herb Kane signed away all rights to the state and they have released it into the public domain, or Mr. Kane has or allowed free use of this image, no such documentation has been provided. -Mak 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For articles requiring replacements, there is an image at Image:Queen Kaahumanu.jpg. Though not as idealized, it is a period representation of her that is in agreement with other likenesses from that time. -Mak 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Astrokey44 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ticonderoga Launch.jpg

(uploaded be me myself) according to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSN8309083&JPGPath=/Assets/1983/Navy/DN-SN-83-09083.JPG, picture was taken by Ingalls, not a navy sailor. As substitute, I uploaded Image:USS Cowpens (CG-63) drydocked.jpg --Schlendrian 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:ZwiazkiV.svg

I want to delete it because it has several mistakes. I made better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winiar (talk • contribs)

To the nominator: Please check again the given file name. --ALE! 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heroes Acre 4.jpg

double-image effect, image taken trough a window? --GeorgHH 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete -- Infrogmation 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSCF0478.JPG

bad quality and bad name. --GeorgHH 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banderamonteria.JPG

BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banderasincelejo.jpg

BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All planetary systems of the milky way

Useless category. Actually, we have only one solar system to list in this category, and no chance to get all the planetary systems of the Galaxy. More, “milky way” is mispelled.

Present scheme : Category:Astronomy => Category:Astronomical objects => Category:Planets => Category:Planets outside the Sol system. --Juiced lemon 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F Scott Fitzgerald.jpg

Sorry, i am the uploader but it already exists. --Dada 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}} please. --Panther 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:DSC 0068.jpg

Wrong pic uploaded in wrong format and under wrong name. God, I hate lag... Halibutt 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark {{Speedy}} or {{Badname}} please. --Panther 09:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 09:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Little swiss and slinger speedway.jpg

Midnightcomm 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rafa.JPG

Source given is a magazine webpage and a forum webpage. This image is a copyvio from the magazine. --Abu badali 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I era images

The following halftone images I've uploaded, their status as PD-old etc. was contested a while ago. No help from the village pump. One admin suggested that I'd research who actually the photographer is, something which I can't (needle in a haystack..). More detail here.

Original upload: Image:Horse simulator WWI.jpg, Image:East Prussia war grave 1914.jpg, Image:Ferdinand Foch pre 1915.jpg, Image:Friedrich von Ingenohl pre-1915.jpg, Image:Paul von Hindenburg pre-1915.jpg, Image:Rear Admiral David Beatty pre-1915.jpg, Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg, Image:Imperial Russian artillery ammunition baskets WWI.jpg, Image:Crew of Unterseeboot 9 (WWI).jpg

Later addition: Image:HMS E7 (WWI).jpg, Image:HMS Shark (WWI).jpg, Image:George V and Admiral Callaghan onboard HMS Iron Duke.jpg, Image:HMS D1 (WWI).jpg

The latter series and some of the original ones I would put as {{PD-BritishGov}} (British armed forces photos), the rest as perhaps {{Anonymous work}} because it will be very difficult to determine the original author. That they were in widespread circulation (newspapers etc.) I do know, some of the images in the book I scanned them from have been put on commons via Project Gutenberg and the Imperial War Museum.

What to do? Scoo 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose those credited to "Det stora världskriget vol. II, p. 347. Printed in Stockholm 1915." would fall under whatever the copyright status of that 1915 Swedish book is? -- Infrogmation 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Marian richero and Image:Marian Richero.jpg

REASON: promotion. --Juiced lemon 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WATCH OUT! The author has removed the delete templates from these pages. --Juiced lemon 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Thuresson --ALE! 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Echinops pictures to be deleted

Both Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus.jpeg and Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_blatt.jpeg have a duplicate name. Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_bluete.jpeg is obsolete now and should be deleted. Thanks. The author of these pictures. Fabelfroh 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The third image is still used. --ALE! 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Light bulb icon3.svg and Image:Light bulb icon4.svg

Both of these images were tests, but they appear the same as Image:Light bulb icon2.svg while having slightly different code (hence no {{duplicate}} tag). Elembis 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CheyFidel.jpg, Image:Che Guevara2.jpg

unrestricted commercial use is not allowed, therefore against the Commons policy --ALE! 12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete -- when the copyright holder reserves his right to have the final say about usage, the image shouldn't be on Commons. But it would be perfectly acceptable as fair use on those Wikipedia that accept it. / Fred Chess 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker based on his moral rights that are independent of copyright status. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still might sue you even if the picture is public domain. The moral rights are not transferrable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of those pictures anymore. --Mikko Paananen 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ddm 2004 025 Zuoying Festival.jpg, Image:Ddm 2004 024 Zuoying Festival.jpg

not cc-by, is cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, see[60]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xu 2003 003 Hualian.jpg

not cc-by2.0, is cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, see [61]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Konstanz stadtwappen.png

Not used, vector version available -- rayx talk 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Synchronicity.jpg

Lizenzkonflikt (siehe Copyright-Hinweis), Autor reagiert nicht auf Anfrage: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph Balzar

license conflict: VG Bildkunst is claiming the copyright, while author says its GFDL. The author didnt answer in the German Wikipedia to the questions concerning this (see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph_Balzar#Copyright_?). -- 141.30.81.164 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) aka Amtiss[reply]

For me this image is a case for {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with PD-ineligible or delete for futility.--Wiggum 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep it. It seems as if the author won't come back so soon. -- 141.30.81.164 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's ineligible for copyright, but that's not enough reason to keep it. It's a bad JPG, it's unused, and it could always be replaced by simply typing (*)*, couldn't it? Angr 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue Michael Jordan.JPG

No freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S. Statue was created in 1994 by Omri and Julie Rotblatt-Amrany.[62] -- howcheng {chat} 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Abkhazia.png

SVG-version available: Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg. Please look at Image:Abchaziëvlag.png and Image:Abjasia.png, i think they should be delete, too. (the three png-images are not in use)--GeorgHH 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chekhov house.jpg

this Image has a coyrigth. --- Aineias 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

Image:Alto Palancia cv.png

Low resolution image, superseded by Image:Localització de l'Alcalatén respecte del País Valencià.png ; the other locator maps have gray backgrounds (see Category:Land of Valencia comarca locator maps). --Juiced lemon 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg

The image contains at least 20 errors in mottos and a few other errors and is poorly sourced. See [63] for more details. Cmapm 09:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Ashcroftman.jpg

A silly joke. --Panther 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Cheneyman.jpg. --Panther 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Darkone --ALE! 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Diamond-problem class relationships.png

An UML-compliant and public-domain version in SVG exists now: Image:Diamond_inheritance.svg. The en- and de-Wikipedia articles which used the image are already changed to refer the new image. --RokerHRO 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ticketwc06.jpg

Months ago I uploaded a pic of a ticket for the Winter olympics of Turin 2006. It was deleted because it was considered a copyviol (ediscussion here. If that was true, I think the same applies with this picture. Otherwise I will reload mine. --Snowdog 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo o2 300dpi.jpg and Image:Logo o2 72dpi.jpg

Both images found in the "against policy category". However, I think both can be save applying the {{PD-ineligible}} license tag. Both images were downloaded from http://www.de.o2.com/ext/o2/media/index?preview_req=&category=Pressebilder+Logo --ALE! 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are as ineligible for copyright as about any other logo. --Rtc 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:No-map.PNG

I accidently uploaded this image with .PNG with capital letters. A new one has been uploaded at Image:No-map.png, so this is only a unused duplicate. Mathias-S 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slettet. Ingen grunn til å ta opp slike ting her, merk feilopplastinger med {{Bad name}}. Kjetil_r 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Artigas-flag.jpg

I the author ask for delete it for Wrong flag desing. Thank you, Loco085 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NGC 6822.jpg

Copyright violation: the source of the image is [64]; NOAO images require permission for commercial use. Mangojuice 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.jpg

Source of the image is [65]. I didn't find any information on the original author nor on the copyright status on Sandy's Opera Gallery. The licensing section claim this image to be PD-old. This is very unlikely to apply. Miss Schwarzkopf was born in 1915. So, if we assume her to be 21 years or older at the time of taking the image, it was in 1936 or later, so PD-old can not apply. Anyway, the image is certainly not older then 1930, so its unlikely that the author died before 1936. Rotkraut 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuetzebach im Thueringer Wald

bad name, right article is Stützerbach.--GeorgHH 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skibladner arrives Lillehammer 1924.jpg

Photo by Anders Beer Wilse († 1949). The uploader claims that the copyright has expired, (I guess) because he considers it a non-artistic photo (without «verkshøyde»). Non-artistic photos are only protected for 50 years in Norway. I disagree with the uploader, nearly all Norwegian photos from 1924 should be considered works of art. --Kjetil_r 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The shorter protection period is for trivial works; this is a planned photo by a professional photographer, and not a trivial snapshot. Cnyborg 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist eine Farce, was hier abgeht, was hier alles behalten wird. Mit der Herangehensweise, krampfhaft alles behalten zu wollen, verschrecken die commons professionelle Fotografen! Die hiesigen Admins sollten sich einer Wiederwahl stellen, sonst verkommt das hier zu einer Sammlung irgendwelcher Fotos, die nicht frei sind, die man schlecht findet und deren Lizenzen sehr zweifelhaft sind, also eine äußerst unzuverlässige Quelle - Finger weg von commons! --217.88.160.79 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EN: Low quality is not a reason for deletion, except a better image with same or similar content exists. But a Non-free license is a reason for deletion. So please tell us, which image(s) do you mean. Thank you. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DE: Schlechte Qualität ist kein Löschgrund, außer es existiert ein besseres Bild mit gleichem oder ähnlichem Inhalt. Nicht-freie Lizenzen dagegen sind ein Löschgrund. Es wäre nett, wenn du uns konkret sagen könntest, auf welche Bilder sich dein Kommentar bezieht. Danke. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg

Reason : The lightning of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted and no image of it by night can be published without the authorization of the company which has the exploitation rights of the tower. This image is at the edge of what could be made : there's the Seine river and a bridge (small) in the foreground, a skyscraper (with no point of interest) at the right and the tower well visible in the background, almost the main element of the picture. The possible deletion of this photo needs to be discussed. Sting 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xbox 360 white background.jpg

not found in flickr.--Shizhao 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Image-Uttower1.jpg

Speedy delete requested by uploader - me. OB by Image:Uttower1.jpg -Nv8200p 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please use {{Bad name}} for such requests. --Kjetil_r 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos

Almost all logos would have to be tagged as {{Logo}} in this category, so would be eligible for speedy deletion. If you claim that logos are copyrighted (they are not, except, perhaps, if they are from UK-like territory with appropriate international treaties in effect, I have not checked that) then digitizing it or photographing it won't change that, but that's the way people unsuccesfully try to evade the (non-existing) copyright protection. Further, almost any logos in there are protected by trademark, and, even if (incorrectly) believed to be licensed under GPL (what's not protected can't be licensed) or something similar that does not change anything about trademark protection. Further, Panoramafreiheit does not apply to trademark. Either we delete the whole category including all logos or we make a resonable policy. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep and make a reasonable policy; accept logos regardless of trademark status. Assume Germany's jurisdiction about copyright for logos, except for sweat of the brow countries. I started a tag Template:Trademarked and Template:Logo-Germany and labelled some. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete if logo main subject of image. Could you use trademarked image for any purpose? I don't think so. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. --Rtc 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. I think this is a very slippery ground and it is better to make a radical decision now than to periodically discuss in on each case. --Panther 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Could you use all those images to sell postcards, calendars or books without claim "fair use"? if you can then keep them. --Martin Rizzo 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you sell photos from celebrities here on postcards? If no delete all photos of living persons here --Historiograf 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Rtc is wasting his/her time... Trademarks are not allowed on Commons, as per Commons:Licensing. Any arbitrary interpretation that is not in line with that page will be reverted. / Fred Chess 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I wrote "make a reasonable policy". The restriction about Trademarks has been designed by Duesentrieb (even if he claims it was derived from earlier discussions), who has a clear point of view about these matters and from whom you'd not have expected something different. ---Rtc 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Olofw.jpg

Due to the EU copyright harmonisation, this image is not in the public domain outside of Sweden (if it is in Sweden at all) and should be removed since it cannot be freely used elsewhere.--Wikipeder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter-rabbit.PNG

Beatrix Potter died in 1943. Why is it PD? --171.23.128.1 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beatrix's Potters books were published simultaneously in London and New York. Anything published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain, even if the author has been dead less than 70 years. (According to w:Wikipedia:Public domain, in fact anything published anywhere in the world before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, but I'm not sure if that claim is generally believed here at Commons.) The question of whether Beatrix Potter books can be uploaded to Wikisource was discussed here and answered positively. Angr 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the license tag from {{PD}} to {{PD-US}}. I hope that is ok. --ALE! 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the picture from the book in Project Gutenberg.. ;-) --Civvi 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Meinhof

Image:Ulrike Meinhof als junge Jo.jpg

Image:Ulrike Meinhof als junge Journalistin.jpg

Nice that there is permission from the daughter, but this permission is entirely irrelevant. Basically, we need permission from the photographer. --Rtc 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baader.jpg

Obviously the site does not have the copyright on the source material for the scans it offers, thus cannot grant such a permission in the first place. --Rtc 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frodo35.JPG and Image:Frodo.JPG

Not useful here. --Panther 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WiiRemoteController.png

Looks like a tracing of the official press release photo [67], compare the diagonal shadow across the face. We have free photos of this device.

Image:MWP Bofors wz36 02.jpg

Uploaded by mistake. Balcer 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All paintings by Pavel Korin

See Category:Pavel Korin

These paintings have the license {{PD-Soviet}} on them which claims that all works published in the former Soviet prior to 1973 are public domain.

Pavel Korin died on 1967-09-22, and I don't think that the template is really applicable.

Fred Chess 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all and this ridiculous template as well. These pictures are obviously protected in Russia and elsewhere. --Wiggum 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Wiggum is right, the template is ridiculous. --Rtc 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg

This image purports to represent the "Ten Thousand Corpse ditch", which was part of the "Nanking Massacre". However there is no evidence on the originating website listed on the image's Commons entry as to who the author of the picture was, nor to support the assertion that it actually occured during the Nanking Massacre. So I don't think that it can be taken to fairly represent the Nanking Massacre on the wikipedia article[68] and thus should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")

See Category:Nanjing Massacre

These images (except for Nanjing Ditch) are not in use on wikipedia. Also they purport to represent Japanese war crimes, yet there is no evidence on the corresponding source websites as to where or when they were taken, or by whom. Thus it is not possible for them to have a proper encylopedic use, so I think they should be deleted. Also some of the images do not have sources listed.

However, the "Slayers" picture has been well sourced on wikipedia so I have no problems with it. "Nanjing Ditch" is listed above for a different reason. 82.32.20.159 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep both pictures. license seems fine to me and I don't see a reason for a deletion at all. If the the source is questionable this has to be verified, but they definitely have a encyclopedic value. -- Gorgo 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on Gorgo's talk page, I'm not sure if he was sure what the deletion listing was, as he said "both pictures". Obviously I said two particular pictures from the category are either ok (Slayers) or listed above (ditch). Plus I thought that if pictures were not in use in wikipedia articles (as is with the case with the pictures in the category), that was a justified reason to list for deletion. 82.32.20.159 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I meant both of your listed deletion requests are not valid in my opinion. "Not in use" is no reason, because pictures can be on a gallery in commons which is just linked from wikipedia, or they might be used in future articles/projects. -- Gorgo 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So what the lack of information in regards to the source? You said that "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified". How can anyone verify their sources, given that the website links are far too vague? If the image purports to represent something, surely that "something" must be made clear in the source to ensure it is used properly.
Also Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source at all on the wikipedia file, as the URL link is broken. So at the very least that one should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a POV issue, nothing to do with licensing. When these editors run out of things to deny the Nanking Massacre with, they do this sort of thing to game the system. First they construe that "no/little sourcing is provided" when in reality thousands of sites as well as published bestsellers use these images, remove them from the article page, then try to delete them on en or commons to get rid of these images forever. Miborovsky 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any information as to the veracity of these images - not that the images are fake, but that they actually show what they are supposed to. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I have repeatedly said Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source. If you want me to relist it separately, that's no problem. But at the same time you should acknowledge that picture can be removed. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that's what I meant with "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified" - but they seem ok and consistend with pictures about nanjing in other literature, so there is no need to rush any decision. If someone finds a source (e.g. a book) that states this/these pictures are indeed what they seem to be than this has to be added, if someone finds a different source they have to be renamed. Until that time maybe a note should be added that there is no verified source right now. -- Gorgo 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus what's this about "getting rid of these images forever"? These aren't the only copies of these pictures in existence. If there isn't anything wrong with them, it would be very easy to re-list them. I admit that I misunderstood the best way to list for deletion, but having been pointed in the correct direction I've worked out what to do. Now you, Mib, have consistently refused to either update tags properly (in some cases you edited so there were no tags) or indicate why pictures are justified, etc. You just "cry wolf" in regards to this being a POV issue, which is hardly fair. One should expect more from a moderator. 82.32.20.159 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Type 98 tanks on parade.jpg

This picture has insufficient information on its source as to the fact that it is free because it comes from a US gov source. The only reference comes from a magazine, which could easily be a copyright violation. Also its wikipedia listing appears to have been deleted, which increases my suspicion that the image is not free for use. 82.32.20.159 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 Lebanon war Israeli civilian fatalities.jpg

Claimed to be free use because the website acknowledges that its images can be reproduced under the fair use doctrine. That's simply a statement acknowledging the existence of that doctrine, it isn't a license for unrestricted commercial and derivative work. Doesn't belong on Commons. Jkelly 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not claimed to be free, but rather a fair use of possibly copyrighted material available on MFA website. Obviously the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not taken those pictures, and has not paid anyone to bring them online. I think this image falls into the same category as this one. Anyways, following this deletion request, I have emailed the MFA website a request to explicitly approve this montage image. They're unlikely to reply earlier than Sunday local time, so I hope it's possible to keep the image online until then. Cheers. --Lior 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That image is hosted at en:wikipedia. Fair use isn't allowed at commons. Jkelly 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's my mistake of course. If MFA give their written consent for the publication of this image in Commons, will it be allowed on Commons? BTW, how do we know that Image:Qana_afp.jpg is free? There is no sign of prior contact with AFP, nor a link to its site of origin.--Lior 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1_1_11.svg

If I have understood this correctly pictures from the Swedish Road Administrations cannot be used commersially, and cannot be changed. They then ought to be deleted, all of them./Mannen av börd 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All flags uploaded by user Bab83

More than one year ago I requested a bot to delete all flags uploaded by this user but no action were taken so I repost it here:

Fisrt an extract (sorry in French) from our discussion. We can see here that he is not the authors and that he don't care about copyright:

Bonjour, serait il possible d'avoir une réponse à ma question ci-dessus? Es tu Pascal Gross? Car après comparaison des fichiers de drapeaux que tu as uploadé je remarque que ceux-ci sont les mêmes que ceux de cet auteur. Serait il possible d'avoir plus de précision car je voudrais lever tous les doutes à propos des droits d'auteur. greatpatton 31 août 2005 à 12:35 (CEST)

Je ne suis pas M. Gross. Certains drapeaux ont été dessinés par moi, d'autres proviennent de crwflags, d'autres proviennent d'ailleurs ecore. Cela dit, je peut aussi redessiner chaque drapeau. Il suffit de l'ouvrir dans Photoshop, de diminuer sa taille d'un pixel et ce n'est plus la même image, donc plus de problème de droits d'auteur. Faut-il faire ça ? S'il le faut, j'écrit vite un petit script de redimensionnement des images et je les réuploade tous Bab83 31 août 2005 à 13:09 (CEST)

All the flags are comming from Flags of the World. Here is an exemple:

There is a remarkable similarity in file size and image size between Category:Flags of municipalities in the district of Echallens and Flags of Echallens district. Notice for example the striking similarity between Image:Assens Vaud-drapeau.gif and [69]

Can someone help with this task?

Greatpatton 10:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=2609513"