Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
thing.jpg){kind=link}
The picture is a professional portrait copyrighted on the Virginia General Assembly here and used on the candidates' facebook page here. The license requires more verification, such as an OTRS permission. Hekerui (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
113 Qur'an recitations
editAll the qur'an recitations found at Category:Qur'an recitation are Copyvios, because the author only died in 1988 and there is no proof that he released his work as PD.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- ٢)سورة البقرة
- ٣)سورة آل عمران
- ٤)سورة النساء
- ٥)سورة المائدة
- ٦)سورة الأنعام
- ٧)سورة الأعراف
- ٨)سورة الأنفال
- ٩)سورة التوبة
- ١٠)سورة يونس
- ١١)سورة هود
- ١٢)سورة يوسف
- ١٣)سورة الرعد
- ١٤)سورة إبراهيم
- ١٥)سورة الحجر
- ١٦)سورة النحل
- ١٧)سورة الإسراء
- ١٨)سورة الكهف
- ١٩)سورة مريم
- ٢٠)سورة طه
- ٢١)سورة الأنبياء
- ٢٢)سورة الحج
- ٢٣)سورة المؤمنون
- ٢٤)سورة النور
- ٢٥)سورة الفرقان
- ٢٦)سورة الشعراء
- ٢٧)سورة النمل
- ٢٨)سورة القصص
- ٢٩)سورة العنكبوت
- ٣٠)سورة الروم
- ٣١)سورة لقمان
- ٣٢)سورة السجدة
- ٣٣)سورة الأحزاب
- ٣٤)سورة سبأ
- ٣٥)سورة فاطر
- ٣٦)سورة يس
- ٣٧)سورة الصافات
- ٣٨)سورة ص
- ٣٩)سورة الزمر
- ٤٠)سورة غافر
- ٤١)سورة فصلت
- ٤٢)سورة الشورى
- ٤٣)سورة الزخرف
- ٤٤)سورة الدخان
- ٤٥)سورة الجاثية
- ٤٦)سورة الأحقاف
- ٤٧)سورة محمد
- ٤٨)سورة الفتح
- ٤٩)سورة الحجرات
- ٥٠)سورة ق
- ٥١)سورة الذاريات
- ٥٢)سورة الطور
- ٥٣)سورة النجم
- ٥٤)سورة القمر
- ٥٥)سورة الرحمن
- ٥٦)سورة الواقعة
- ٥٧)سورة الحديد
- ٥٨)سورة المجادلة
- ٥٩)سورة الحشر
- ٦٠)سورة الممتحنة
- ٦١)سورة الصف
- ٦٢)سورة الجمعة
- ٦٣)سورة المنافقون
- ٦٤)سورة التغابن
- ٦٥)سورة الطلاق
- ٦٦)سورة التحريم
- ٦٧)سورة الملك
- ٦٨)سورة القلم
- ٦٩)سورة الحاقة
- ٧٠)سورة المعارج
- ٧١)سورة نوح
- ٧٢)سورة الجن
- ٧٣)سورة المزمل
- ٧٤)سورة المدثر
- ٧٥)سورة القيامة
- ٧٦)سورة الإنسان
- ٧٧)سورة المرسلات
- ٧٨)سورة النبأ
- ٧٩)سورة النازعات
- ٨٠)سورة عبس
- ٨١)سورة التكوير
- ٨٢)سورة الانفطار
- ٨٣)سورة المطففين
- ٨٤)سورة الانشقاق
- ٨٥)سورة البروج
- ٨٦)سورة الطارق
- ٨٧)سورة الأعلى
- ٨٨)سورة الغاشية
- ٨٩)سورة الفجر
- ٩٠)سورة البلد
- ٩١)سورة الشمس
- ٩٢)سورة الليل
- ٩٣)سورة الضحى
- ٩٤)سورة الشرح
- ٩٥)سورة التين
- ٩٦)سورة العلق
- ٩٧)سورة القدر
- ٩٨)سورة البينة
- ٩٩)سورة الزلزلة
- ١٠٠)سورة العاديات
- ١٠١)سورة القارعة
- ١٠٢)سورة التكاثر
- ١٠٣)سورة العصر
- ١٠٤)سورة الهمزة
- ١٠٥)سورة الفيل
- ١٠٦)سورة قريش
- ١٠٧)سورة الماعون
- ١٠٨)سورة الكوثر
- ١٠٩)سورة الكافرون
- ١١٠)سورة النصر
- ١١١)سورة المسد
- ١١٢)سورة الإخلاص
- ١١٣)سورة الفلق
- ١١٤)سورة الناس
Comment Gone already? Why so fast? What country's copyright laws do apply? The recordings were made more than 20 years ago - for how long are "performances" of works protected in the source country? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to {{PD-Egypt-1996}} the author has to be dead before 1946.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think for such audiovisual performances the requirement is that is had to be published befor 1981. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- "which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes" The recitation is of creative character and can thus not be considered to comply with Art. 20, § 1 --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably that is not what is meant by "creative". This kind of protection is not for mechanical scanners, but this type of protection is typically meant for performances of compositions written by someone else, like violinists playing Mozart, etcetera. I am quite convinced that recitations of the Quran in a traditional manner are not regarded as original works but as performances. If this was published before 1981, I think it is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have to think of this as in court. Recitation of the Qur'an is like singing. It's a performance with creative input. I'm sure the reciter would have agreed to use his recitation for free in the public domain. There is however no proof of this. Until such proof is available the images will remain deleted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Singing a known text with a known melody is not regarded as the creation of a work. Audio recordings of such performances are protected by "neighbouring rights". According to Egyption law, such performances that were published before 1981 are not protected anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where is this stated in the egyptian law? And it's not a known melody. Abdul Basit is certainly not like other reciters. The deletion of the files were constituted because of the conflicting sources and permissions: "CC-BY-SA-3.0 and following details "The reciter is not alive anymore and the reciter distributed his recitations free of charge"." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Singing a known text with a known melody is not regarded as the creation of a work. Audio recordings of such performances are protected by "neighbouring rights". According to Egyption law, such performances that were published before 1981 are not protected anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- "which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes" The recitation is of creative character and can thus not be considered to comply with Art. 20, § 1 --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think for such audiovisual performances the requirement is that is had to be published befor 1981. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to {{PD-Egypt-1996}} the author has to be dead before 1946.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot read the Egyptian law, but they had probably implemented the 1961 Rome Treaty with a protection period of 20 years for audio recordings of performances. Recitations of texts of course do allow for variation and individual interpretation, but that is the same for compositions of composers of classical music. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no proof that the sound file was created in 1981. The Egyptian law as far as I understand it doesn't exempt audio recordings of performances from being copyrighted. If u want more professional on topic users u may ask on Commons_talk:Licensing --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The reciter worked mainly for the official Egyptian broadcasting corporation [1]. Egyptian copyright law protects broadcastings for 20 years. His Saudi recordings are also PD as they were broadcast in the 50s and 60s (Saudi law protection is for 25 years). --Obayd (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Egyptian 1954 law doesn't state that broadcasting is protected for only 20 years. You can check it at this website. The 1954 law was the only one intact in on the URAA date. There has to be proof that his Saudi recordings were in 50s and 60s and that their source is of these recordings and proof that such a law exists. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I am not the deleting administrator, but since the images are already gone I will close the discussion. Please make a follow up on COM:UNDEL thank you! Huib talk 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Published in 2003, Author is still alive, born in 1958 Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Adam Cuerden. Yann (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Source website did license under GFDL, but source website was using an image they did not own copyright on. Is elsewhere on web, larger, e.g. https://www.sharemation.com/vandidad/Dooran.jpg Fences and windows (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
My wrongs when I was a noob... please, delete it because I do not have permission to use it
Delete unused, uploader claims copyvio, and wants to delete it --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Zirland. Yann (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- This photo can be used as illustration of some article about malnutrition or feeding standards. But personality rights have to be clarified. --ŠJů (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No evidence of permission to use, is from here: http://www.zika.cz/images/zika_foto.jpg Fences and windows (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No valid license. Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be a sort of group photo as all other uploads of this user.--Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyright unknown, apparent source newspaper is not free use, PD, CC or GFDL, image on web elsewhere prior to upload: http://www.afriquechos.ch/spip.php?article3599. Also see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:AdolpheMuzito.jpg Fences and windows (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, already speedydeleted under a different name, the reasn was: http://www.afdevinfo.com/htmlreports/peo/peo_25002.html, http://www.culturek.net/www/index_section_.php?pageNum_rs_show_title=1&totalRows_rs_show_title=288&recordID=2667&MM_section=laune, and other websources.Martin H. (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Also a personality rights violation as image of a minor who is not the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- While true, the image has some potential value for skating.--Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's low quality, I believe that we have many images better than this one.--OsamaK 07:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information and out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 05:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlike Mac9, Urban didn't know what license was acceptable for flickr images in 2005. I have spotted several copyvios by him. There is a replacement image here with higher resolution: File:KingsCanyonWaterfall.JPG This flickr account owner's images are all clearly licensed as 'All Rights Reserved' as she says here This image is a copy vio. Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 05:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlike Mac9, Urban didn't know what license was acceptable for flickr images in 2005. I have uploaded 2 replacement images here: File:Dusy Basin in Kings Canyon1.jpg and File:Dusy Basin in Kings Canyon2.jpg This flickr account owner's images are all clearly licensed as 'All Rights Reserved' as she says here which explains why it Failed Flickr review as “All Rights Reserved.” This should be deleted on sight. Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Such accusations are unnecessary. Leoboudv cannot know where or not the Flickr owner changed the licenses between November 2005 when urban uploaded this image and 2007 when the Flickr review was done. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The flickr account owner says all her pictures are licensed as 'ARR' and Urban has uploaded many copyvios...from other flickr accounts. Urban didn't know Common's licensing policies in 2005 because there was no flickrreview system in place. Since I have uploaded 2 replacement images, this image can be removed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- True. However, it's linked (with wrong syntax) on the uploader's userpage.--Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan lower qaulity version of File:David Archuleta Mardi Gras Paparazzo Photography.jpg with text on it. OsamaK 08:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Totally different photo. Not "lower quality." Advice: try actually looking at these photos before wiping out someone's hard work and contributions. Have now applied for OTRS permission.Paparazzo Presents (talk)
Image failed flickr review within 2.5 months of upload. Given the image only shows half the tree and there are 50+ replacements, I think this should be deleted. Its removal is no loss to Commons...since its copyright was never verified. The resolution is very low too. Leoboudv (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Did not intend to have the quote marks as part of the name; they make it more difficult to reuse the photo in Wikis. The photo has been re-uploaded under a more Wiki-friendly name, File:USCGC Tucker (CG-23).jpg Bellhalla (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. You can use {{Bad name}} for such cases. –Tryphon☂ 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
my mistake, too much metadata - possible privacy threat --Jamzewsizazamcze (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? What exactly threatens your privacy? Well if you really want to re-upload the file with some EXIF fields removed, I guess we could delete this version. But you should seriously consider plausible deniability. –Tryphon☂ 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- serial number of my camera threatens my privacy... I live in a strange place... ok, doesn't matter, I can live with that, I have decided to accept EXIF, I'm sorry for wasting your time Jamzewsizazamcze (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not taken by 20minutos.es, they say "en una foto de archivo" but mark the image as Foto:20minutos.es. Considdering http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1986155&postcount=69 - which is a forum but in this case more trustable then 20minutos, the image is from an other source, 99% probability that it comes from an image distributor. Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The IPTC data of the hi-res version at the link Martin gave says "Singer Rihanna arrives at the Much Music Video Awards in Toronto, June 18, 2006. REUTERS/Mike Cassese". Hence Delete. Lupo 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, metadata always worth a look. Thanks Lupo for finding this important information. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative works --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP for sculptures in the US. –Tryphon☂ 11:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
now an empty category. --Euku:⇄ 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC) --Euku:⇄ 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thing.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
thing.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Claimed as being {{Attribution}}, but that is not supported by its source, which specifically says (bottom of page) "Copyright © 2000-2007 sing365.com". Similar to other files uploaded by this user on English Wiki (and currently up for deletion) • Rabo³ • 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thing.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thing.jpg){kind=link}
want to upload better picture Itchyal (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image page without media. --Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan personal photo. OsamaK 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be a group photo, as all other uploads of this user.--Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This image - though loosely based off the Irish rugby union' logo, should be considered a copyright violation (look at the original logo here --Blackcat (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Agreed. Too close to the original, and hence a copyvio. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a file uploaded by me this morning using the Flickr upload bot, because the Flickr uploader had tagged it as "Glanum". After some research, I came to the conviction that this is not located in Glanum. I'd rather delete because the file name is now improper and because the file is useless as long as we don't know where the picture was really taken. Teofilo (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, does not look like Glanum (but it is many years ago that I was there). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Why not ask the Flickr uploader? Looks like a simple copy-paste error of his part when he uploaded it at Flickr. He might still remember where he actually took that photo. (In some nearby village, 40 minutes after his last Glanum photo, if EXIF is to be believed.) Lupo 07:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
demandée par un ami de la personne représentée --Crochet.david (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, author appearing at a book festival; I don't think she (let alone her friend) can have the image removed. –Tryphon☂ 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ingrid Astier (the girl on the photo) do not accept this picture on the Internet. 89.81.12.69 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a public place. –Tryphon☂ 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- traitement suspendu suite à l'envoi d'une nouvelle photo et dans l'attente de la validation OTRS. Crochet.david (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. L'image envoyée est différente et donc importée à l'adresse File:Ingrid Astier en 2005.jpg. Pour le reste, la question a déjà été tranchée--Bapti ✉ 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Demande par l'auteur de la photographie lui-même Crochet.david (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. We've been over this already, nothing new since the two previous requests. No personality rights issue, no copyright issue, and free licenses are irrevocable. –Tryphon☂ 08:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader owns the copyright to this image, probably resides with college. MBisanz talk 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair use image Luctor 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Already deleted: "18:42, 8 July 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Uefa2012polandukrainelogo.png" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uefa2012polandukrainelogo.png: Fair use image)" MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Map shows Europe not before 1923 (see borders of Turkey/en:Treaty of Lausanne). The author must be wrong, no proove of PD. sугсго 09:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The author, according to Library of Congress, died in 1921. Other sources say 1922. The pubisher may have done some slight border changes, acc. to 1923 situation. --Alex:D (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Notyourbroom (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- But if the publisher changed something in 1923, there is another authoer than Bacon, George Washington (1830-1921), therfore neither PD-Old nor PD-US-1923 fits. sугсго 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The author of the slight changes in unknown. The main author remains Bacon, as clearly stated on the map. --Alex:D (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- We need a permission of every author. (or PD has to be proven). sугсго 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The author of the slight changes in unknown. The main author remains Bacon, as clearly stated on the map. --Alex:D (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - or upload the original Bacon version.--Avala (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no other original version, THIS is the original version! But since he died short time before the map was published, the editors had to trace the exact borders of Turkey. So: This is Bacon's work, which is credited, the changes are really minor, not credited and anonymous, and since the Library of the Congress allows this map to be downloaded at very high resolution, it's in public domain. --Alex:D (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's copyright is credited to a Weber Costello Co. - copyright holder is a company - the term for company hold ccopyrights is 95 years after publication. It will be in the PD in 2019. sугсго 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- NO: if the author of the creative work is a corporate, the rule for corporate copyrights would apply; it doesn't apply simply because a company happens to (claim to) own the copyright. also, trivial changes are not enough to claim copyright as a "derivative work". the name/border changes were minor, & public knowledge. the publisher probably sourced them from the US gov't; the map itself was probably sourced from US gov't info. whatever claims of authorship might apply to this as a creative work, they would apply to the underlying map, & at most, the basic changes in the layout of european borders, & country names, post ww1. really tho, it's the map of europe that's the "artistic creation" here, & that's clearly old enough to be PD-USA. Lx 121 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep! -- it's in the library of congress: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g5700+ct001973)) i read thru their archive info & it's considered PD-usa; if it was not, there would be an annotation on the listing re: restrictions. i do want, however, to note 2 things here: 1. the original map should be uploaded to wmc, that's just basic archival policy; we have a retouched version, we need to have the original as a reference. Alex:D did a lovely job of restoring it, but if we don't keep a clear record of the original documents, then we aren't a serious media archive, we're just in the business of making "pretty" pictures. 2. the fact that there's an LOC listing should make the outcome of the deletion debate on here obvious & a no-brainer; however, there is also a vote on whether this image should become a featured picture, & i note that the pro/con vote on this deletion debate seems to be mirroring the pro/con vote on FP status. i do not think it is appropriate to use a DD as a backdoor method of manipulating an FP debate. sorry, but that's a game we should not start playing on wmc. if we start down that road, we are going to get a whole new category of ugly edit wars! since the LOC listing settles the matter definitively (if you actually take the time to go thru the links & read the relevant info), i'd like to see the deletion request withdrawn. Lx 121 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
