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 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.

Various images uploaded by User:Radoste

Author = Juergen Krueger
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Author= Juergen Krueger
Source= own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Author = Juergen Krueger
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Author = Gordana Schwartze
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Autor = Gordana Schwartze
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Autor = Juergen Krueger
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
Autor = Juergen Krueger
Source = own work
uploaded by User:Radoste
All these pictures are uploaded by User:Radoste as own work, but if you have a look at the list you can see that there must be something wrong! One time the author is named as Mr. Juergen Krueger and another time Mr. Gordana Schwartze!
Also have a look at [1]! --80.237.152.53 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were discrepancies on german wikipedia, too. But instead of clarifying it, the user took refuge on commons.

Here a user asks because of "permission to GNU FDL for own work ???" Without answering user radoste put the picture on commons. (I hope deletion on german Wikipedia will not be too fast!) 

Bildbeschreibung: Ferdl und Schowmaster Karl Dall, Meine Show-Deine Show, Sat1
Quelle: selbst fotografiert
Fotograf: Gordana Schwartze
Datum: 18.02.1986
Sonstiges: Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung unter GNU FDL wurde mir Benutzer:radoste erteilt.

In general, you can see this proceeding very often, if a copivio/inconsistency was detected on for example german Wikipedia the user tries it the next time on commons! --80.237.152.53 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Judging by the text you provide, I can not see the copyright issue -- to me it says "Gordana Schwartze took this picture (self-created) / Agreement to release under GFDL license conveyed by user:radoste" / Fred Chess 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The image size for the posed (last, likely High School from Backdrop) picture (and a couple of the others) indicates to me you're looking at stuff from a family member if not the musician himself. Certainly several cameras have been involved, different screen resolutions than are on the fan site, etc. All adds up to versimilitude to me. No third party is going to get their hands on such covering so many years and events. Note the images on the fan site are all compressed compared to the uploaded ones... normally by quite a bit. Getting noticed, and staying noticed is the only way such folks grind out a living. They certainly aren't going to complain if they're garnering publicity. In short, no liability, no downside, and likely the preformer himself is the user. de.wiki should decide whether he's notable, but the album covers are pretty conclusive there. And I don't have a clue on reading German, but I'll bet the user hasn't done a lot of other editing. Can anyone check that? So that make it self-promotion— seems reasonable rather than starving... maybe he's got some kids in college.<g> // FrankB 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Image:England Rose.jpg

Closeup photo of a copyrighted logo (of the Englsh Rugby Football Union) ed g2s • talk 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo from shirt I have. I don't think there are copyright issues in taking a photo of a shirt i bought. If copyrighted objects can't appear in photos then you should remove all the photos where commercial and non commercial signs, drinks cans and bottles, appear. Of course it's just my opinion and I'll accept any decision because I understand my position it's highly opinable. BTW a similiar photos of a different subject was deleted without any notice, so thank you or letting me know :) --Massimo Finizio 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the rose is the main object of the photo. -Samulili 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 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.

Images in Category:Photographs_by_Agencia_Brasil

User:555 recieved upon his request a clarification ( "O uso do material é exclusivamente para fins de cobertura jornalística. Não há qualquer autorização para derivações e uso comercial." - Use of the material is permitted exclusively for journalistic coverage. Derivations and commercial use are not authorized.) of their license (see [2] and [3]). As there was enough time for others to share their points if he is right and if Template:Agência Brasil is really unfree (see Commons_talk:Licensing and my call at pt.wikipedia village pump) and nothing came out that did proof 555's view on that very topic wrong I thatfor made Template:Agência Brasil a deletion request template and thus moved all these images here for deletion (I hesitated to make a speedy maybe some further pt.wikipedia people still can wake up). So please help as well notifying all uploaders of images from Agência Brasil with the usual notification template given at the deletion tag of every image. Arnomane 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding about Agencia Brasil. Must not be deleted

  • The licence of Agencia Brasil textually says: The use of the photos produced by Agencia Brasil is free... According to the law it is due to register the credit, i.e. name of the photographer/Abr (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.[4]".

This is the official licence. It's very clear it's not only for journalists, and also by teachers, reserchers, and people in general. And it is also very clear that it can be used by commercial press. The replay to User:555 clarification is not official. Notice it's made by "Eurico Tavares, Assessor da Diretoria de Jornalismo" that is (Eurico Tavares, Adviser of the Press Director). He is not an authority, and he is probably misunderstanding the message.

SO PLEASE, DONT DELETE THE IMAGES. YOU HAVE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE LICENSE.

Regards, --Roblespepe 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commercial press is exactly not enough A free license needs to permit all commercial use, not only commercial press use. Please don't misunderstand wikipedia and commons as a storage for pictures to be used in wikipedia. They are for storing pictures to be used by everyone under a free license that permits creating arbitrary derivative works and use the picture commercially in an arbitrary way. There is only a 'free use' statement on their web site, which is ambiguous and needs to be interpreted in the most careful way (free journalistic reproduction here). We were asking for permission to use outside this careful interpretation. If we want to keep the picture, we need an explicit permission from an authorized person that commercial use beyond press use is permitted for everyone. We did not get such a permission. Instead, we got an explicit clarification from a non-authorized person that we won't get such an explicit permission from an authorized person. That is enough of a reason to delete the pictures. If you want the pictures not to be deleted prove you are right by getting them to change their unclear statement into a CC-by-sa tag on their web site --Rtc 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Rtc, but I think you act out of unjustified paranoia. Just because we don't have an explicit-extreme-with-out-a-doubt permission doesn't mean we have to delete an image. And it appears that most users and administrators share this viewpoint with me. / Fred Chess 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Historiograf 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. There is no legal reason to delete such images. Hell, even keeping clearly nonderivative and noncommercial images (such as this one, because of clarification) is entirely legal of course. It is only a question of commons policy (voluntarily and intentionally rejecting a broad range of licenses) and commons policy must not be confused with the law! Now what is the problem? The problem is that people, contrary to commons policy want to keep journalistic and nonderivative pictures here, primarily for use in Wikipedia. The consequence is dogmatic and irrational behaviour of wishful instead of careful interpretation of licenses etc. This deletion request is a very good example: We have a clarification yet people (not only User:Roblespepe, see the template discussion) are trying to argue for ignoring it and to keep the pictures. I vote for deleting these pictures and for a wikimedia commons that has pictures unequivocally under a free license. I want pictures that can be modified and commercially exploited without to suspect that the pictures are there legally, but the given licensing information is wrong. Is your objection only against my 'copyright paranoia' view, as you call it? Or is it a objection against deleting the pictures in this particular case? --Rtc 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - Copyrighted but free to use, apart of formal concept, not any significant difference in use to cc-by. Shaqspeare 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask a brasilian admin to write to Agencia Brasil (EDITORIA DE FOTOGRAFIA - EDITOR - Marcello Casal Jr. fotos@radiobras.gov.br) and resolve the question. --gildemax 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kept for now -- lack of consensus and activity. It has not yet been suffciently shown that these images can not be used in accordance with Commons policies. I suggest that further discussion about Agencia Brasil be made at Commons_talk:Licensing.

May 6

Image:Sensburg.ogg

correct german pronunciation under Image:De-Sensburg.ogg ...Sicherlich Post 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just upload the correct version to Sensburg.ogg? --MarianSigler {bla} 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually should be better to have the language code in the name for spoken audio files IMO. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's right. But then I think it's better to name it Sensburg-de.ogg. --MarianSigler {bla} 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the original pronuncation (by someone else, I see - you should at least have the courtesy to notify them! - I see you did on their en.wp page)? Having two different pronuncations helps rather than hinders, I would have thought. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


May 11

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:Lacrimosa-f07.jpg

Indicates "Used with permission", tagged as GFDL. No other license information, nothing useful at source. Jkelly 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source (german: Quelle) is given on the image description page (website of the band), the uploader is a trusted user of the German Wikipedia, he writes he asked for permission to upload it under GFDL and was given it. What exactly is your problem? --Elian Talk 03:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission to do what? Who gave the permission? GFDL requires credit to the photographer. Who is the photographer? Thuresson 01:04, 22 May 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:Lacrimosa-harlekin-blau.jpg

Same as above. Jkelly 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frist upload on de.wikipedia by de:Benutzer:Eike sauer --Atamari 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source (german: Quelle) is given on the image description page (website of the band), the uploader is a trusted user of the German Wikipedia, he writes he asked for permission to upload it under GFDL and was given it. What exactly is your problem? --Elian Talk 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission to do what? Who gave the permission? GFDL requires credit to the photographer. Who is the photographer? Thuresson 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thuresson, did you even look at the image before you asked who the photographer was? There isn't one. Seahen 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images in Category:PD-AR-Presidency uploaded by User:Roblespepe

The Images in Category:PD-AR-Presidency uploaded by User:Roblespepe not showing the current President Kirchner are probably not from the website of the Argentine presidency (I can not find them on that website) or are not the copyright of the website owners (for example the frontpage of a newspaper).

Especially the following images not yet in the public domain (25 years after publication) should be considered for deletion (they are not yet tagged for deletion):

If these images are from the presidency website or a copyright of the presidency a "deeplink" with the proof should be provided. If no proof will be provided the images should be deleted. --ALE! 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The permission mentioned at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina/.gov.ar is clearly useless, since it only allows for "public use". Thuresson 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The permission is not useless (there is {{PD-AR-Presidency}} which is actually something like cc-by-sa). The images listed here are not official photographs from http://www.presidencia.gov.ar . That's the point. --ALE! 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

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:MaoZedong.jpg

这张图片摄于1966年以后，按照中国的版权规定，要到2016年以后才属于公有领域--Shizhao 11:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please write it in some basic english? Shaqspeare 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His sentence means: "This picture was taken after 1966. Pursuant to Chinese Copyright Law, it is in the public domain after 2016."--Jusjih 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This pic is already discussed on 2005-08-15. The pic was released for public and no copyright claimed. Mao was a public figure and no any organization claimed for his pics right. （to Shizhao: 毛是公众人物，和蒋不一样的地方是没有一个组织或个人曾经声称对他的肖像具有版权，文化革命期间的照片是发送到公有领域的，具体到这张照片也没有任何人声称具有版权。另外按照国际惯例，法律一般没有追朔力，在中国知识产权法颁布以前发表的作品，你恐怕找不出胜诉的例子，例如周海婴状告人民出版社）。 --Fanghong 00:44, 13 June 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:Logo gymawebmedia1.png

I am the author and founder of GymawebMedia, I want to delete this image / logo on Wikipedia Commons, because it's not correct. Not good size. --User:Romavip 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted as per uploader request
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:Spss.gif

This a screenshot of SPSS and is 'fair use'. Please delete. Siebrand 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC) I'm the author of the photo and I have the permission of the aurthor of the mosaic : Claudia von Aponte > aponte@aon.at, < www.edelstein.cc > And the uploader has the permission of both of us.Mr.Mikkalai has other reasons for his delition request, not the question of authorship af this piece of art. <-- This comment is wrong. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.123.121.26[reply]

  • Comment I don't know who wrote the above text but this should be verified. Is is permissions @wikimedia.org ? I'm not familiar with the procedures, maybe someone can fill me in. / Fred Chess 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1birnbaum.jpg

Currently tagged with {{PD}}, taken "circa 1925". Unlikley to be under the {{PD-old}} and no idea whether it falls under {{PD-Germany}}. Who said the image was public domain when it was first found on a random site? --Circeus 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete because it is possible that this {{PD-old}} terms do not fit:
This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. --gildemax 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 22:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

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:Lautenberg.ogg

Self-made file should have been a pronunciation of Lautenburg (en:Lidzbark Welski), but instead was of Lautenberg. --Olessi 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? As long as the file's title is consistent with it's content, I see no reason to delete it... surely, tehre's *some* place called "Lautenberg"? At least it seems to be fairly common as a last name. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping the file on the server, but I don't know of anything that would link to it at this time.Olessi 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.jpg

Not a work of the U.S. federal government, and therefore, the PD rationale given is not valid. The image is tagged as PD because it came from state.gov, but I find it hard to believe that a U.S. State Department employee was assigned to paint a positive-looking portrait of the enemy. --Jiang 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, the copyright is 50 years iirc. It could be PD if the author died before 1956. I agree with you about the positive-looking aspect of this picture. I found a version where one can see a japanese signature (?) : [5].. if someone is able to tell what's written. Note that the NationalGeographic tagged the picture as Photograph courtesy U.S. Naval Historical Center. Dake 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is PD. The USN's National Historical Center states that this is an official portrait of Yamamoto painted by Shugaku Homma, on 1943. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h79000/h79462kc.

Article 6 of the old copyright law states:

Article 6. Copyright in a work published or publicly performed under the name of a governmental or public agency, school, shrine or temple, association, company or any other organization as its author shall endure for thirty years from the time of such publication or public performance. [6]

As an official portrait commissioned by the Imperial government of Japan, this portrait became public domain on 1973. -Mak 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Other copies If it is decided that deletion is correct, then the uncropped copy I unploaded should also be deleted. Image:Yamamoto official portrait NH 79462.jpg -Mak 16:08, 15 June 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:JamesHowellStreet.jpg

Photo of author James Howell Street. Photographer unknown. Taken around the 1950s.

This picture can not be lic. with CC-BY-SA-2.5 nor it is PD = delete. --gildemax 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:PC-Engine FirstModel.jpg

Fine replacement available. --PiaCarrot 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept, Thuresson 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ViaAppia02.jpg

I am not so sure about the licence anymore. The source link states copyrighted. I think I copied it from another wikipedia (transwiki), but I cannot find it neither on en:WP nor IT:WP. I was new then and "move-to-commons-assistant" or exact guidelines faq did not exist. So I think if it is not overall important, it can be removed. Longbow4u 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

--Fb78 18:54, 10 June 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.

Various Star Wars pictures

Note: Unless we get some really strong expert opinion here, I propose to move this discussion, and related ones, to a separate page, Commons:Derivative works, before making a final decision on these matters.--Eloquence 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C-3PO.jpg Chewbacca Head.jpg Darth Vader and storm Truper 2.jpg Luke Skywalker2.jpg R2-D2.jpg Yoda Figur2.jpg Jarjar-Zanaq.png

Star Wars is a copyrighted work. All reproductions of Star Wars characters, including derivative works, are therefore infringements of copyright. They may be fair use, but they are not and cannot be free content until Star Wars copyrighs expire. Trying to circumvent copyright by photographing models or masks or creating your own drawings does not work.--Eloquence 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, but we decided in the "pringles case" to keep the pictures (sorry, can't find the discussion at the moment). Where is the difference to Image:Darth Vader and storm Truper 2.jpg? --Avatar 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the Pringles box photo is also non-free to an extent which we cannot accept here on Commons (highly visible logo and package design are at the center of the image), but the subject of the illustration is not a copyrighted work per se, which is the case in the Darth Vader photo. Still, I'm not comfortable about hosting the Pringles photo on Commons. I have sent an inquiry regarding the Pringles case to two members of Wikimedia's legal team.--Eloquence 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think drawings are perfectly acceptable, since it is a subjective impression. Zanaq 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding drawings (sketches), some comment above at #Image:Midori_fanart.jpg would be welcome please! pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think we need the legal team to weight in on this, if it was down to personal preference I'd be inclined to allow such images, but this is not something a vote (or consensus) can solve, either it's ok to to photo action figures, figurines, spaceship models and toys and "cosplaying" people and relese it as free licensed or it is an unacceptable use of a copyrighted characters/content. An interesting question is where to draw the line for how much copyrighted content to allow in an image, for example Image:Timessquareapril2005.jpg contains numerous copyrighted logos and stuff, or how about Image:RallyOnLeveeYellowSubShirt.jpg that t-shirt design is copyrighted no doubht. Basicaly we need to get someone who know theyr stuff (preferably the foundation legal team) to lay down at least a guideline for this kind of thing: Models/faction figures/costumes of copyrighted characters, ok or not? Drawings of copyrighted characters, ok or not? Pictures containing copyrighted logos or advertising banners and such, ok or not? Pictures of product packages (pringles, coke cans et all) with the conpany logo and stuff clearly visible, ok or not? --Sherool 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think an obvious line to draw is to always ask: "What is being illustrated?" In the Times Square photo, it is clear that the subject of the photo is Times Square, and any copyrighted imagery appearing there is incidental. Unless we receive input to the contrary from the legal team, I think we can keep images where the copyrighted element is not the central part of the picture, the subject of the photo. To me, those cases parallel the use of a quotation from a copyrighted work in a Wikipedia article which is labeled GFDL. I should point out that people have been extremely anal about copyrighted elements in screenshots, which is probably a good analogy to the Times Square case.
But when a clearly copyrighted character from a movie or cartoon is the subject of the image, and is recognizable as such, it does not matter what the specific expression is: it is a derivative work. All, please read the Wikipedia article derivative work which discusses this concept and also cites Star Wars as an example. Also take a look at http://illegal-art.org/ for some examples of art which has been subject of lawsuits for being derivative. Note that we are going further because a) we claim that our works are free content, rather than fair use, b) we do not try to parody, but to accurately represent.
So I think there's a fairly strong case for deleting these pictures now. The one remaining question is where to draw the line of copyrightability. Is Han Solo copyrightable, given that it's just a young Harrison Ford in a particular set of clothes, maybe with a laser gun? My intution would be no. But for Chewbacca, R2D2 or Darth Vader with their unique looks, the answer is clearly yes.--Eloquence 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And these pictures? --80.171.155.207 11:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep those of human actors in a particular set of clothes, and delete the others.--Eloquence 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia has servers in Florida and the Florida statutes include personality rights legislation : No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by: (a) Such person; or (b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or (c) If such person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation authorized in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or if no person, firm or corporation is so authorized, then by any one from among a class composed of her or his surviving spouse and surviving children. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0540/SEC08.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0540->Section%2008#0540.08 . As Wikipedia is published on the internet without advertisements, its activity is non commercial, but as a rule, non commercial contents are not allowed on Commons. Teofilo 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a copyright restriction. This is a different-law restriction. So we are still providing images that are as free as they possibly can be, by copyright. So we should keep such images by my understanding, because they are not imposing any copyright restriction. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all this would not be allowed, what about images of candy bars and/or all images containing company logos, however small? Siebrand 12:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted all of these pictures. You should definitely learn the difference between derivative works (copyright issue) and trademarks (not a copyright issue). --Fb78 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me some links to info that I can digest within an hour to explain the differences. Definately willing to learn. Also not clear to me: which law is applied to images on here - please link. From what I can see we're having discussing based on many different countries' laws. Siebrand 07:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'VE FORGOTTEN THESE PICTURES: Image:Darth Vader and storm Truper.jpg Image:Darth-Vader LS.jpg Image:Yoda Figur.jpg Category:Darth Vader Category:Star Wars !!

  •  Keep Anthony DiPierro, on the Commons mailing list, said: "Photos of copyrighted characters also are generally not considered copyright infringements, in the US. If you take the photo and build a comic book around it, then maybe it would be. " / Fred Chess 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My answer on those cases is below in the discussion on Image:Bulbasaur toy.JPG. --Fb78 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should close down wikimedia commons, because there are hundreds of pictures that show copyrighed stuff Image:Torino Comics 2006 C1P8 with a Jawa.jpg ....
We should close down Commons, just because you can't upload pictures of R2D2? Come on, there's plenty of other photographs that don't violate third party copyrights. One of our most central guidelines is that you can use every picture commercially. But George Lucas won't like it if you print a Commons picture of Darth Vader on a billboard and not ask him for permission. --Fb78 10:27, 11 June 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:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png

This image is being replaced by a vector version, Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg, and the image is not currently used in any wiki projects. --Hunter 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Obvious discrepancies between this image and image:flag of Hong Kong.svg have been discovered [7] [8]. — Instantnood 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on Instantnood's argument. Instantnood is currently being blocked in the English Wiki [9], and also being banned on various articles (e.g. Hong Kong as shown in Talk:Hong Kong). He has raised some doubts in the English wiki about the flag before, though failed to tell what's wrong in the vector version.The differences between the two flags, if any, is minor, and the community consensus across wiki projects is to use the svg version, only Instantnood has the opposite opinion. Hunter 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Communities can use any version they like. It's not our position to limit their choices or enforce a preference. Is there any pressing reason to delete the PNG? Is any harm done by keeping it? From the side-by-side comparison, the red in the PNG does seem slightly darker and detail (stars) seem slightly "fuzzier" around the edges. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, but it appears the community already made a choice. You can that from both images' usage across wiki projects: PNG, SVG. Surely there are no pressing reasons to delete the png, no harm to keep it, as in the case of all other redundant images. As I have said earlier, there may be differences between the two images, but are the differences significant? Does the differences stop one from identifying either one as the Flag of Hong Kong? Also, svg version is easily modifyable, if it is discovered to be in error later, one can easily modify it, much more easier than in the case of png. Hunter 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I'm afraid I've to say it's quite dishonest to say " the community has already made a choice ". It was user:Winhunter herself/himself who orphaned it, including replacing it on other users' personal pages. The .png and the .svg images are not identical, and the former should not be replaced by the latter until all inaccuracies are fixed. As an encyclopædia even most minor inaccuracy, no matter generally noticeable or not, is not acceptable. There are detailed laws regulating the specifications of the flag. — Instantnood 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did part of the work on the English wiki by community consensus, which is show in, for example w:Image_talk:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png. Please remember how others reverted your desperate attempts to reinstate the png version (e.g. in [10]) and how your actions has got you banned in various articles [11] and the English wiki. And please take note that English wiki is not the only wiki project, other wiki projects' users also decides to use the svg version. And do you think I (or any user) can actually make others choose? I can only enact the community consensus (i.e. Retiring the image.) There exist ONLY one user having the opposite opinion, you. -Hunter 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I am afraid that's not what "consensus" meant to be. Actual facts cannot be overturned by so called consensus. Further, something agreed upon by two persons is hardly a consensus in the true sense. As long as obvious discrepancies between the two images are discovered, and neither is confirmed to be accurate, the conversion should be temporarily suspended. — Instantnood 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, you still don't get it, people "vote" for the svg version when they do their edits. I know you'll accuse me of making this up, or replacing all of them myself, so feel free to check for all the pages that uses svg version, check their histories and see who put the svg version of the flag in there and make up a statistics. I only did the finishing touches when I did the retiring of the png version, vast majority of pages already uses the svg version at tat time. And what's wrong with the svg version? You don't know and you can't tell. Unless you can point out what exactly is wrong about the svg version, I don't see a reason why not use the svg version and retiring, and as I mentioned AGAIN AND AGAIN, svg version is easily modifiable should it is found out to be wrong, while modifying the png version is a nightmare.Hunter 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the two images are not identical, its accuracy is still in question, no matter how people vote or act. You are not justifying yourself if you cannot justify its accuracy. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. — Instantnood 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia runs on a consensus system, and obviously the consensus is towards the svg version (from various talk pages and their usages). There are no absolute truths in this world (e.g. on the Taiwan issue), just a more correct one as perceived by the Wikipedians. In this case, Wikipedians decides that the svg version should be the one which is more correct. Hunter 09:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. same --Shizhao 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Effeietsanders 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have replaced the original .png image with one very recently retrieved from government website. — Instantnood 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete We don't have to keep wrong just because it's different. Samulili 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The .png is now replaced with an accurate one (very recently retrieved from government website), while discrepancies still exist with the .svg one. The accurate (.png) one cannot and should not be deleted unless the .svg one is also replaced with an accurate one. — Instantnood 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that it's from a government website which gives it a lot of accuracy. However, the jagged edges should not be there. Furthermore, I don't see why we should have an svg rendered as png, and a png. Samulili 09:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this superfluous one is the source of edit wars. 131.107.0.78 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept -- because the image is used on at least three Wikipedia projects, because Brion Vibber requested us not to deleted redundant png flags, and because there is consensus of not forcing onto projects which image format they should use. / Fred Chess 22:36, 13 June 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:Ichthus.png

It is redundant to Image:Ichthus.svg. I delinked Ichthus.png and overwrote it with a cross. User:Zanaq reverted it and wrote on my talk page: please do not replace good png's with unusable and incredibly ugly ones. But i can't see any difference.

*Delete the image was broadcast on a big screen. The broadcaster holds the copyright. What we have done is simply a rather round about way of getting a screenshot.Geni 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Image:USS Arizona burning-Pearl Harbor.jpg Template:Info-Pearl Harbor attack

This image isn't copyvio(PD-USGov-Military), but its description contains ja:真珠湾攻撃(and some language editions?) but doesn't contain the description's timestamp. Does its description seem GFDL-vio?--PiaCarrot 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the probrem is not in its description but in Template:Info-Pearl Harbor attack at ja:Wikipedia:即時削除. --PiaCarrot 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iras.jpg

This Webpage wrote [12] that the Image is from Ball Aerospace [13]. I don‘t know if the Webpage is right. --84.60.106.74 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : another version of this image can be found on [14]. Following the terms of the licence, credit has to be given to 'Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, Caltech/JPL'. IPAC belongs to NASA, so I don't know exactly which licence can be applied, I leave that to those who know... By the way, the image on [15] is of far better quality, so when the proper licence is applied, it it might be interesting to change the image as well. CyrilB 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

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:Torresdeparquecentral.jpg

The uploader mentioned jp.wiki as the source. jp.wiki hasn't had information about this image since 2004. See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Caracas001.jpg --Alhen .::··¨ 14:59, 24 May 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:Etlig.jpg

Replaced with Image:Etlig.svg. Kimbar 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hitler portrait - 1936.jpg

According to the provided source - the british imperial war museum - this 1936 picture has unknown copyright. I doubt that it really is PD as it is obviously a propaganda photograph.--Wiggum 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a historical photograph. Were the rights to such German military photographs not ceded to the allies when the war was won? Netscott 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per reasons stated above. 70.19.217.181 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a frequently debunked argument. Though it doesn't seem fair, the "spoils of war" argument often runs afoul of German copyright law. -Mak 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was taken by de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), who died in 1957, therefor copyright will expire 2028-01-01. Until then: delete along with every single other picture of adult Hitler. All british claims regarding copyrights of german works were abandoned after a law suit in 1974. The imperial war museum is in violation of german, british and international copyright. --h-stt !? 07:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; if it's good enough for the British government, it's good enough for me. --Delirium 10:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hypsographic curve.PNG

Replaced with Image:Hypsographic_curve_PL.svg Kimbar 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hitler-chamberlain.jpg

PD is not plausible here. The provided source URL ([16]) doesn't work, the new URI is probably this one but there isn't any statement about source or licensing of the pictures.--Wiggum 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the German Museum of History, the image is a press photo taken in 1938 by "Agentur Schirner" (i.e., the Schirner agency or studio). According to [17], taken on September 29, 1938 at the Munich Conference. Lupo 08:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with every other picture of adult Hitler. There are no free images of him yet. --h-stt !? 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure there aren't any? What about photographs taken by the British government at one of these conferences? Since they were before 1956, they would be out of copyright, since UK crown copyright is 50 years. --Delirium 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some photographs from such visits in other countries but of minor quantity. In this case it is almost unlikely that a picture from a conference in germany will fall under crown copyright.--Wiggum 12:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was taken by a photographer in the employ of the British government, it would be under crown copyright, even if taken in Germany. --Delirium 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that this picture was taken by a british photographer on duty of the crown? Otherwise we have to delete it. --h-stt !? 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

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:Atomium, Brussels, Belgium.JPG

Images like this one have been discussed before. Speedy? -- Kjetil_r 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was (last?) discussed here Commons:Village_pump_archive-23#Image:Atomium.jpg Sometimes pictures like this involve a lot of discussions, so a "slow" deletion is better. I add the other pictures below : #Various Atomium pictures and category Teofilo 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know nothing about laws in Belgium; I downloded it from flickr as it was complaint with licensing policy here. I trust in your experience for this case. --mac 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Arnomane --ALE! 09:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tequendamia.jpg

Just a headshot, nearly been there for a year and not linked to anything, also low quality. --DuLithgow 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)  Keep No reason to delete. No orphan, see [18] Sanbec ✉ 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angband.png

The Tolkien Estate's icon (which is incorporated in Angband's icon) is most certainly not free. -- Jon Harald Søby 15:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Hermann_Goering_und_Willy_Messerschmitt.jpg

This 1941 nazi picture is hardly a US-Government work. The provided source ([19]) states: "Rights status not evaluated".--Wiggum 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nomatako.jpg

Copyed from [20]. (not completely the same) --Kkkdc 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, they are identical; [21].) Jon Harald Søby 18:20, 25 May 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.

Various Atomium pictures and category

Category:Atomium

Image:Bruxell-atomo.jpg

Image:AtomiumInnen.jpg

Image:Atomium-sm.jpg

Image:Atomium-restoration-detail.jpg

Discussion

The 4 above Atomium picture and the category have to be deleted because the building is an art work copyrighted by the company which manages it. Teofilo 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the Atomium is André Waterkeyn. After he died, copyright was transfered to the company or public service that is currently running the Atomium. Teofilo 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't know if some disposition of the Belgian law restricts the reproduction of photographs of public places. At first sight in the law on copyright it doesn't say anything. An interpretation of copyright like that limits the freedom of speech and I don't believe that it's possible. --Prevert(talk) 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is not permitted to show pictures of it. The edit-window says 'Copyright violations will be deleted! This is copyright violation. Deleted it--Walter 13:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  •  CommentI find this thread and this pdf about copyright of Atomiun (in dutch). But it seems very uncertain, although the SABAM imposes the duty to request permission. I want to know if there is some judicial statement on this subject? --Prevert(talk) 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have deleted, all Atomium images as freedom of panorama does not apply in Belgium and this building is copyrighted. As we had these images again and again here with always the same result all future Atomium images are now speedy deletion on sight (as long as the Atomium is not a very minor part of the image). Arnomane 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's like pfctdayelise said, that we don't write policies here -- we follow them. Present reasonable arguments why these images should be kept at Commons_talk:Licensing. / Fred Chess 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images deleted by User:Arnomane, categories kept with warning --ALE! 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

Official paintings held by the U.S. Government

I am nominating the following images for deletion because I believe they are copyrighted:

All of these images are official paintings of presidents and first ladies produced under commission for the White House. They are not "works of the United States government" as claimed because they were not "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" (17 U.S.C. § 101). The painters of official portraits received individual commissions for these specific works, and were not employees of the Executive Office. As such, copyright of these paintings are held either by the original painter or if the painter explicitly transferred the copyright, the U.S. government. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. § 105 states "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." A lengthy discussion on Wikipedia-en has persisted on this issue, but while claims of fair use for these images may be permissible on Wikipedia, copyrighted images not under a free license cannot be permitted to remain on Wikicommons. --Jiang 09:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have no need for icons. We can get real portraits by clicking on each president. But these little headshots (I only looked at a few; they are all those little headshots, right?) are worthless.--HereToHelp (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh... I like how en.wp just offloaded the debate onto us. ;P Looks like  Delete to me. Some are quite a shame to lose, like Image:Clinton.jpg. But what can you do... pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't offloaded, as much as it was escaleted. This all started with one image, and each time Jiang seems to be losing the debate, he escaltes it. There has been a dispoute going on over at . It just spilled over onto the commons. These images are all PD, and each Jiang keeps escalating the dispute. Since the images have been incorrectly tagged, and since Jiang is only targeting 14 of the 40 or so images, I am going to revert the tagging.
As far as I can remember, there are no copyright attorneys that have weighed in on the issue. I spoke to Bill Alman, the White House curator, who said the following.

Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic image is credited.

Is there a copyright attorney in the house? --Evrik 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For images to be used here, the burden lies on us (i.e. Wikicommons) to prove that the image is freely licensed or in the public domain. First, the White House curator does not have the authority of the law and is also not qualified to interpret the law. The second sentence in his reply completely disregarded Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Even if he were right, his opinion on the matter should not be used to sway us either way. Second, we do not know if he is referring to "public domain" in the legal sense of the term. In any case, the burden of proof is on us: what is the legal justification here? who declared these portraits to be public domain? what law or statute made them non-copyrightable? Please show how 17 U.S.C. § 105 does not apply here. --Jiang 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I made a wrongly placed comment below that was in fact intended for this section. So I'm sorry that you have to respond twice (if you want to respond).... --  Keep You who argue about deleting these portraits, can you even find anyone who actually claims copyright of them, or someone who claims they are not public domain? Usually people are happy to claim copyright, but here everyone who's been contacted says we can use them as we wish. / Fred Chess 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the validity of your logic. Works are by default copyrighted, not public domain. The burden of proof lies on us to show how these works were declared or released to be in the public domain. The burden of proof is never to show that works are copyrighted. --Jiang 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add these to the mix

Here were some images that were, for lack of space on this page and the discussion-like matter of the debate, moved to Commons_talk:Licensing. / Fred Chess 08:39, 14 June 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:TweetyDoll.jpg

This photo was marked as copyright violation, but is a photo of a doll a "derivative work"? Do we have some policy for such photos? A.J. 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work. --Fb78 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vigeland stampvoetend jochie.jpg

The note on the licensing page says that photos of works of art exhibited in public spaces can only be used for non-commercial purposes, unless it is clear that the work is not the main subject in the photo. As Commons images are supposed to be used for commercial purposes too, pictures like this should either be banned or clearly marked. In any case, the issue has to be discussed. Alx 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, en:Gustav Vigeland, died in 1943. Copyright of his sculptures should expire in 2014. As long as his sculptures are the main object of an image it may be not suitable for the Commons. --Denniss 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is also similar to discussions about panoramafreiheit, French copyright law (specifically on the lights on the Eiffel Tower and the pyramid outside the Louvre, and derivative works in general. Cnyborg 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is planned to be on a slide, used as an example so don't delete the image until further notice. — John Erling Blad (no) 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as noncommercial is considered non free on commons. I still don't understand that there is a copyright on a work exposed in public but it's the law. Dura lex sed lex - CyrilB 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently discussed at the no: Village Pump (no:Wikipedia:Tinget) and I understand that the copyright owner of Vigeland's works has been contacted. Let's see what the result of that will be. The Norwegian copyright law is quite clear though, as mentioned by Alx. Thuresson 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentRegarding the contact please see the remark of John Erling Blad, posted a few lines above what Thuresson writes here. Noorse 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kept--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
opened again. Don't be persuaded by the voters. / Fred Chess 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Does the norwegian law apply in other countries as well, under one of the copyright conventions? If so, delete. If not, keep but clearly mark as free only in some countries. --Delirium 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Commons:Licensing#Berne_Convention: "we should always care about the laws of the country of origin of the work" --Kjetil_r 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete then, unfortunately. Seems plain enough and hard to ignore; the consequences for having questionably-licensed material in Commons are worse than the consequences of having to delete some of it. --Delirium 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment CheckUsage. This image is used in alot of Wikipidias so if you wanted to delete it you would have alot of work to do to move it. Any Volenteres? I think Pictues of things foung outside are what the commons is for so i would vote keep but you guys spewed loads of Read this first XYZ etc. I'm not going to read pages and pages of Legal Text before i vote.--Yskyflyer 00:09, 12 June 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:Kleines Wappen Bremen.png

New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 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:Bremen Wappen.png

New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 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:Mittleres_Wappen_Bremen.png

New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 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:Coa_de-bayern_lesser_300px.png

New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 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:Coat_of_arms_de-brandenburg.png

New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crystal Clear mimetype real doc.png

Makes use of copyrighted Real logo. -- Jon Harald Søby 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete; have to agree. Reproductions of a copyrighted logo don't make the new image free. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Image:Leman tutorial 0.jpg

Screenshot of copyrighted Photoshop software. See also rest of Category:Image of tutorial. -- Jon Harald Søby 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The objective of these pictures is clearly not to violate adobe's copyright, but photoshop is copyrighted. Yet another example of limitations due to copyright for the end-users!CyrilB 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Argh ! Well, I'm confuse. I have to admit that, totally dedicated in creating the tutorial, I've completely forgotten that even screenshots of a software fall into the same license which, in this case, is copyrighted. So please delete all these images (but not the category), and I will make new ones only of the main picture showing the steps of the enhancement. Sorry. Sting 12:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked at your tutorial, so I don't know wether photoshop is mandatory for it or not, but maybe you could use the gimp instead, which is free software. When high productivity is not required, switching from one to another is quite straightforward, and could allows you to show important parts of the software (levels window for example...). But once again, I don't know if this can apply to you. - CyrilB 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was thinking about do that. I didn't use The Gimp for years but there must be quiet the same tools that in Photoshop and it will be clearer to show the whole screen that the picture alone. I will wait the deletion before making a new upload to avoid the access to these ones through the file history. Sting 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Image:Classes 319 and 222 at St Pancras 1.JPG

Poor quality image and quasi duplicate of Image:Classes 319 and 222 at St Pancras 2.JPG. Captain Scarlet 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MML approaches at St Pancras 1.JPG

Duplicate image of Image:MML approaches at St Pancras 2.JPG Captain Scarlet 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the images are very similar but not idetical. --ALE! 21:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, They may be different photographs but they show the exact same view, with no useful differences. --JeremyA 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is because they are very, if not extermely similar tha tone does not have encyclopedic value. Wikipédia is not Imageshack. Captain Scarlet 18:16, 3 June 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:Saar45.jpg

Copyright violation. See [23] "Copyright © 2006 Israel Defense Forces. All rights reserved" Hashekemist 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - the uploader was not notified until now. Give the image another week in case the uploader has some information about the copyright of the image. Kjetil_r 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Belma.jpg

Claimed to be own work, yet it is very low-res and has no metadata, and has video-style watermarks. -- Jon Harald Søby 13:45, 27 May 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:Olivia live 01.jpg

See [24]. --Tolanor 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete uploader loaded it with "fair use", someone changed to GFDL. --Tomia 21:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Andre Engels --ALE! 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Diyako

  • Image:Amediye.jpg
    Image:Amediye.jpg looks like an old picture (hard to tell whatever it is) no source.
    • This image can be found on [25], and information about the date seems to be available on the website, but I'm not sure (this is not a language I can speak...) CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Duhok.jpg
    Areal view. "first published in Iraq before Iraq signed a copyright treaty with the United States" doesnt sound right since judging from the picture quality this has been taken recently perhaps.
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:PJAK-ALA.jpg
    Released under CC, I dont think thats a commons compatible license. No information about author. This is the flag of an organisation
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Sherefxan.png
    No info on copyrights. If this is an old drawing it isnt GNU compatible and should be PD. But no info on copyrights.
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert in copyrights but I believe some of those images are copyrighted. Also among some of the images released under GNU should either be PD or Fair-use since I do not believe Diyako created them himself. He seems to be choosing license s at random. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these could just be tagged NSD. It's only necessary to list items here that require discussion. And please notify the uploader, especially when you nominate so many of their images for deletion! pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader should be notified, and the images should be tagged properly when they are requested for deletion. CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has been banned off of en.wiki so I am not certain if he is around. I nominate you to notify :) . --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Preparation pizza pancetta.JPG

This image has missing source information tagged since October 2005. The uploader is no longer active and cannot be reached via email. I just find his/her uploadings with a pattern of licensing the images under GFDL, but this one is missing copyright info. May we just assume it under GFDL?--Jusjih 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Image:Preparation pizza pancetta 2.JPG is same pizza with same camera 7 minutes after. Same user has done pizza recipe in b:fr:Pizza_à_la_pancetta wich uses both images. I think we can guess its GFDL. --Tomia 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your opinion. Perhaps the uploader forgot to tag my nominated image in question. If no one objects, we should tag it GFDL with our reasoning.--Jusjih 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep and add the forgotten tag. Shaqspeare 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ryohoku-es.GIF

Image:ryohoku-es.PNG

Terms of protection of works bearing the name of a corporate body have not elapsed already（§53(1), Copyright Law of Japan）.--K1-yamamoto 01:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cherxiao.jpg

Very low quality. We have many more photos with much better quality...

May 28

Image:Flag of Bouvet Island (rectangular).svg

The official flag of Bouvet Island is the Norwegian flag. This flag is just a fantasy flag. mali 10:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as described as fantasy flag and use for anything there should be no problem with it. Shaqspeare 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is a flag doesn't make it pd. Since it isn't official/internationaly recognised (according to nom), the flag might be copyrighted. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one thing, it is clearly not a work of art. Substituting one colour for another on a flag in use for more than 100 years with a (forgive the expression, dear Norwegians) trivial design, is not art. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that anyone has filed an patent application for a flag, and I strongly doubt such material can be protected under Norwegian copyright laws. The info page states that it is inspired by a flag on a webpage, meaning that somebody must have taken a PD Norwegian flag and replaced its colours to get the same result as on the website. Scandinavian laws protect official flags and flags of private companies but they'd either have to be registred as trademarks or as officials symbols. Neither seems the case here. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goleo2006.JPG

Images of copyrighted material does not create new copyright for photographer --Denniss

  • comment--my understanding of US copyright law is that photographs of three-dimensional objects might be considered to satisfy a a minimal level of originality, and so could be copyright to the photographer. See the 'Aftermath' section of the wikipedia article on w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. JeremyA 15:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reaction - You are right in that this establishes copyright for the photographer; however, that does not change the possibility that publishing the photograph violates the copyright of the copyright owner of the object as well. Just like a translation is copyrighted by the translator, but may not be published without the permission of the copyright owner of the original work as well. - Andre Engels 07:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


delete potential copyright violation. Taking a picture of a copyrighted three-dimensional item does not void the original copyright. Please read Commons:Licensing (the section on derivative works). --Fb78 19:39, 6 June 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.

All contributions of User:Daniol

I think this is trouble user: tagging promo photos with free licenses, historical images with {{Cc-by-sa-2.1-es}}, some photos as {{PD-ineligible}}. --EugeneZelenko 14:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All images deleted --ALE! 20:25, 12 June 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:Medium jb isabelle huppert02.jpg

own work unlikely: this image is used on at least two websites, and has a small size. Furthermore, the actress depicted also hold copyright. CyrilB 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:JeremyA --ALE! 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trnc-arms.JPG

This has been tagged not having information on its copyright status since 15 January 2006 but there are unclear opinion as to whether it is okay to copy from Vector-Images.com . Delete or keep?--Jusjih 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raster versions from vector-images.com are ok when the source is cited. In this case, on the description page of the images it says: "Source: The TRNC arms was sent to me by the TRNC Deputy Prime Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I received the ok to use it on WIKIPEDIA by the TRNC Ho. Rep. here in Los Angeles. en:User:Expatkiwi". Which means for me that the images is not from vector-images.com and therefore the current license tag can not be used. --ALE! 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Main Building IIT Roorkee.jpg

Claims to be PD because it was found on an Indian gov't website. Nothing suggests that any material posted on Gov't of India websites is automatically PD. Jkelly 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuk_Feldkinooperateure_1915_1916.jpg

Found this in speedy deletion category. But it is clearly no obvious speedy. The author is unknown (and very likely dead for more than 70 years) and the image is almost 100 years old. Does anybody know more about that image? Arnomane 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Image:3c28765t.jpg

Image was sourced from the Library of Congress. However, the Library contains many copyrighted works, and this one is credited to Association Press, 1941. It doesn't fall under either {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-old}}. GeeJo 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i'm sry I didn't notice. On the main page it says "Image may be restricted" and that usually means it's under public use because the library doesn't know. I believe that it was donated to the library from New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection which is in(Library of Congress). Should we call the library to verify the status or is it ok?

Jerry Jones 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) The relevant page on the LoC site is here. Basically it states that while its very likely that images from AP on the site are free, it's also entirely possible that AP renewed its copyright on the image and it's only available under Fair Use guidelines. You'll need to contact AP (or possibly the library) to be sure, though. If you do find out that the copyright wasn't renewed, the appropriate tag is {{PD-US-not renewed}} GeeJo 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ruth2.jpg

Image was sourced from the Library of Congress. However, the Library contains many copyrighted works, and this one is credited to United Press International, 1933. It doesn't fall under {{PD-USGov}}, and unless there's proof that the photographer died less than 3 years after taking the photograph, isn't covered by {{PD-old}}. GeeJo 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I called the library and everything is fine for FDRs photograph. However, I called the Hoover library today and the person who oversees the copyright for photos was not there. They told me to call back tomorrow so I we will just have to wait one more day. I will give an updat as soon as possible.

Jerry Jones 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morel01 iga mie jp.jpg

Poor quality: i doubt someone may need it. We have plenty images of Morchella to choose from. -- A.J. 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Image:PreT Hua Guofeng.jpg

photo in 1977, Not PD --Shizhao 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4g Jiang Qing.jpg

photo in 1970s, Not PD --Shizhao 00:47, 30 May 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:Kon Tiki Balsa Raft.jpg

Permission for use was granted for Wikipedia only, and with a clause that two copies of the magazine they're printed in are sent (making it seem that permission was given thinking that they would be printed, not used on the internet). So use is restricted to Wikipedia (thus also non-commercial) and most it's most likely also non-derivative. --Cnyborg 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Wikipedia-only is not a valid license for the Commons. Also really looks unlikely they will grant a free license, given the conditions of the current one. If anyone plans to contact them, please say so here and we will not delete it until we hear back. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleted--Shizhao 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bandera buenos aires zoom.gif

The image is identical to Image:Bandera de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires.png with the only difference, that the latter is PNG instead of GIF. As Commons prefers PNG I nominate the GIF image for deletion. --ALE! 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fejer county 1.svg

Smaller duplicate of Image:FejérMegye.png. (All the other county maps are larger and in PNG format.) Alensha 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dixieland-Festival Dresden 2005.JPG

Unused, replaced by Image:Dixielandfestival05.jpg, the author agreed (see discussion, “kann gelöscht werden” means “can be deleted”). --TM 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light-bulb-and-filament.jpg

Claims to be CC-BY-SA; source given is Hemera.com, a commercial provider of royalty-free stock photography. This makes the license claim very unlikely; note that royalty-free only means that no further payments have to be made by the licensor for basic uses of the picture, it does not mean that the picture can be freely used by anyone.--Eloquence 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It is stated (somewhere on the Hemera website, although I'm not sure it applies to all images) that the image cannot be redistributed - CyrilB 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Image:Erkin Abdulla.jpg, Image:Erkin in Qeshqer.jpg

copyvio, not GFDL--Shizhao 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lille2.gif

copyvio, not GFDL (image created less than 50 years ago, and (c) by the city of Lille) --FoeNyx 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sportcar.png

Vector version is available --MB-one 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Die Uniformen der Allgemeinen SS.jpg and Image:Die Uniformen der SS-Verfügungstruppe.jpg

As stated in the description the pictures are copied from the 1939 organisational manual of the german nazi party. Therefore there is no reason for being PD.--Wiggum 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Unbedingt behalten, da 100% authentisch. Auch sind die verbotenen Kennzeichen kaum zu sehen. Es besteht ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen den Uniformen der Allgemeinen SS und der Waffen-SS, die auf diesen Bildern gut zu erkennen sind. Die Bilder wurden bereits schon in den "Reichsorganisationshandbüchern der NSDAP" der Jahre 1934-38 verwendet. Sie sind damit wesentlich älter als das oben genannte von 1939! Ferner sind auch alle Hinweise angebracht, die verdeutlichen, daß diese Bilder eventuell in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz verbotende Symbole beinhalten können. Ich finde, daß die Bilder für militär- bzw. NS-historisch interessierte Menschen eine gute und vor allem authentische Quelle darstellen...Neonazi brauchen die Wiki in der Regel nicht als "Quelle" für solche Sachen, da sie meistens über die Originale verfügen! Mit bestem Gruß 195.93.60.33 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep, there 100% authentically. Also the forbidden characteristics are hardly to be seen. There is a substantial difference between the uniforms of the general SS and the Waffen-SS, which are to be recognized in these pictures well. The pictures were already already used in the "realm organization manuals of the NSDAP" of the years 1934-38. They are substantially older thereby than specified the above from 1939! Furthermore also all references are appropriate, which clarify that these pictures possibly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland forbid-end symbols contain can. I find that the pictures for military and/or ns-HISTORICALLY do not represent interested humans a good and above all authentic source... to neo-Nazi need the Wiki usually as "source" for such things, since they mostly have the originals! With best greeting 195.93.60.33 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SS has been founded in 1925 so those pictures cannot be old enough to be PD.--Wiggum 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nevertheless the opinion the fact that the pictures are in common-free since between their publication until today over 60 years lies. 195.93.60.33 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The licence tag alleges that the pictures are PD. As i have shown, they cannot be PD by age. As there is no author provided, there is no reasonable proof that the author is dead for more then 70 years. Assuming the oldest version is from 1934 there's a very low probability that the author died about one year later.--Wiggum 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, artist most likely anonymous, therefore PD-ineligible. @Wiggum: go find some better reasons, otherwise please stop trashing this page. Thanks. --139.18.1.5 11:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meles meles.jpg

Supposedly public domain, but although source page says, "All photographs identified as our original work are free to the world for any use you see fit," there is no claim to this photo (found at the end of the "Badger photographs" section) being the web site owner's original work. Howcheng 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lipadom.jpg

Tagged as PD, which is certainly not the case. Image appears to have been taken from [35] but that site doesn't indicate the original source either. Image was deleted by me on en-wiki for being a copyright violation. Howcheng 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The image is most probably not copyrighted. The investigation is under way, but clearly this very relevant picture should not be removed based on assumptions, rather information about source should be added. Also, it is not true that site is not the relevant source - responsibility for all published material is clearly stated here Maayaa 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just discovered that in Croatia, this is not eligible for copyright as a trivial work which contains no original autorship. Note the famous case of Severina's amateur porn tape which was released in Croatia with no consent of Severina. Severina sued, but the case was rejected as the tape (which would be copyright protected in countries like US) is not eligible for copyright as a trivial work. The standards of eligibility for copyright in Croatia is therefore higher than in US. A low-resolution amateurish photo from public gathering is trivial work even by US standards, much more so in Croatia where copyrights are reserved only for cases where original autorship is substantial. I have changed the notice accordingly. Maayaa 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore, I have discovered that according to Croatian law, images that appear in news and other media to illustrate events are EXPLICITLY allowed to be used and reproduced freely, without consent of the author, i.e. they are PD (Copyright law, section 47, paragraph 3). Maayaa 13:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, source (index page) is provided. Moreover, all copyrights for anonimous art work is, according to Croatian copyright law, owned by the publisher (both "moral" and "comercial" rights). Of course, in this case the image is not art work and hence the comercial copyright does not apply (and also, there is another provision in Croatian law, for news images), but for the purpose of wikipedia, index is the source. Wiki does not require to have full name and address of the author when the author is anonimous, but a source that is responsible for the content (and index has claimed responsibility on its page). This is called "moral copyright" and wikipedia respects it strictly. This right has been respected here, while image is ineligible for copyright (i.e. commercial copyright). Had it been copyrighted, it would still be usable on wikipedia though not necessarily on commons, according to fair use provision. In any case, the real reason this image is considered for deletion has to do with attempt to hide this picture - it is a POV issue, not a copyright issue, and that is the truth behind all this. Maayaa 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Caption of this picture [36] says that it was taken in Austria. Why do you think that the author was a Croat? Maybe he was an Austrian reporter... We don't know who the author was and whose laws apply to this picture. 213.202.97.76 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The image is taken in Austria by Croatians, who published it on index portal. The event in question was a high profile celebration attended mostly by Croats, who have created a myth out of Bleiburg, to whitewash their horrible WWII crimes. 213.198.225.18 18:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Høyrelogo.gif

Source states «All content is protected under the Copyright Act. When using material, source must be given». There is no way this is licenced under GFDL as uploader has stated, and I seriously doubt that the Norwegian Conservative Party have agreed to license it under a compatible license. --Cnyborg 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's no way this is the correct license, Røed 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant copyvio. Valentinian (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Komstyret0404.jpg, Image:Terje-selnes1.jpg, Image:EBusterud 2.jpg, Image:Syk-innlandet.gif, Image:Hamar bygning.JPG, Image:Hamar luft1.jpg

The images belong to Hamar Couny in Norway, and are copyrighted. The uploader has previously uploaded copyvios at no.wp. He is notified in his talk page at no.wp. Kjetil_r 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

Image:ADM Vern Clark Scott.jpg

This is not Vern Clark, it is Michael Mullen. See Image:VernClark.jpg and Image:Admiral Michael Mullen, official Navy photograph.jpg and his official biography from the DOD. This image is also unused. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Erthap.jpg

Released only for "noncommersial, educational purposes". --Cnyborg 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Congo democratic flag darker blue.png

Outdated copy of Image:Flag of Congo Kinshasa 1997.svg, which changed to the current flag Image:Flag of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg in the 2006 constitution --moyogo 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Congo democratic flag 300.png

This is the former flag, a copy of Image:Flag of Congo Kinshasa 1960.svg--moyogo 10:57, 1 June 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:120px-Radio Television Kosova RTK.jpg

license unclear --Uwe W. 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 11:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen Moers.gif

Thumbnaill of Image:Wappen-Moers-3.png and superseded by SVG Image:Wappen Moers.svg. --Raymond de 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep, because it is the original File with the permission... we should keep it. On the other Hand it is used as before-after comparison @ w:de:WP:BWS. --Stefan-Xp 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen Moers.png

Superseded by SVG Image:Wappen Moers.svg. --Raymond de 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, never needed --Stefan-Xp 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen-Moers-3.png

Superseded by SVG Image:Wappen Moers.svg. --Raymond de 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen Reute.gif

Better and larger version is now available: Image:Wappen Reute Breisgau.png --Rosenzweig 17:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Radio Television Kosova RTK.jpg

copyvio. not cc-by-sa. see [37]: "Copyrights © 2004 - TravelKosova.com. All rights reserved. Copying materials without permission is prohibited."--Shizhao 18:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikiproject Remembrance Logo.png

Created for a WikiProject that has since merged with another and expanded beyond original aims, rendering this image superfluous. A replacement image has been made available on the English-language Wikipedia. Redvers 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Image:Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences seal.png

A seal without copyright information except the GFDL tag. Would they GFDL their seal? --Hautala 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seal seems old enough to be PD. Claiming Copyright is not having Copyright. --Historiograf 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but please put the information on the page. It still claims to be GFDL. --Hautala 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be mentioned that the seal is protected under the trademark law. / Fred Chess 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which year was it made? --Hautala 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MediaWikiExternalEditorImage.png

  • Delete I think the GPL licence does not apply after combination with non-free, copyrighted material. I am not sure and request comment. See also Commons:Village_pump#Vandalism_in_progress.3F Longbow4u 11:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, I highly doubt the Mozilla logo (which appears in this image) is free to be used. "Copyright © 2005–2006 Mozilla Corporation. All rights reserved." --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand your line of reasoning at all. The icon in the top left corner is not being used as a logo to represent a competing product. In what country would the copyright make that sort of strained inappropriate leap to concluding that the image is somehow representing the Mozilla corporation? (I ask, only because you seem to be indicating the bizarre conclusion that MediaWiki is somehow representing the Mozilla Corporation in the use of a screenshot, which here in America is understood to not be the case.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete in either case, there should be more suitable objects to make this demonstration on that this non-free logo. / Fred Chess 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would be kind of silly (there are some Wikipedia screenshots with logo here...). Better the foundation finally reconsiders their logo policy. Arnomane 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The English Wiktionary references the META Help: page where this is used. --Connel MacKenzie 01:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with an equivalent image not using the logo (then delete this one). The logo in no way is a vital part of this image, which is just demonstrating the external editor. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paltamo vaakuna.png

That file is NOT the coat of arms of Paltamo, it is here: Image:Paltamo.vaakuna.svg. 'Pertsa 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dabur cropped.jpg

Camera Operator was a RETIRED employee of the U.S. Navy, hence NOT in the public domain. Hashekemist 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dabur.JPEG

Camera Operator was a RETIRED employee of the U.S. Navy, hence NOT in the public domain. Hashekemist 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RPD-2.jpg

copyvio --Sonaz 16:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ingalls Shipbuilding.JPEG

Camera Operator was a RETIRED employee of the U.S. Navy, hence NOT in the public domain. Hashekemist 17:02, 2 June 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:800px-Tresgargantas.png

same Image:Threegorges.png--Shizhao 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --ALE! 12:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boh-map.png

bad map--Uwe W. 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not from the Czech Republic. The Bohemian boundaries are very badly displayed on this map --Kirk 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian borders on this map (made by me) are precise: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CZ-cleneni-Cechy-wl.png --Kirk 19:35, 5 June 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:Bonds lotus esprit.jpg

the license does not permit commercial use --Uwe W. 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Angr --ALE! 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bottle inside.jpg

strange license at the picture page--Uwe W. 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bottles in baskets.jpg

strange license at the picture page--Uwe W. 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:100-Emon.jpg

Copyrigted object on the photography?--Uwe W. 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

w:de:Panoramafreiheit? --Stefan-Xp 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is produced in Japan. So wie must use Japan Law.--Uwe W. 08:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, the store's logo is not the main subject of the image. If someone was to crop this image so it only showed the store front, that would not be OK. But this one is OK (in my understanding). pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen at eferding.jpg

New version Image:Wappen at eferding.png availaible. --Dralon 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angela Merkel PD3.jpg

No Free License--84.60.111.214 21:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seroux_d_Agincourt1.jpg

Picture size too big, will be of no use anymore, uploaded by myself Song for sunshine 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 3, 2006

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:Rapid sort 5.PNG

Makes no sense for saving as a picture --iGEL (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jiraiya-naruto.jpg

Reason for deletion request: This image is a fantart, the character Jiraya from the Naruto manga have copyrighs of Masashi Kishimoto --Kerosene 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orochimaru-naruto.jpg

Reason for deletion request: This image is a fantart, the character Orochimaru from the Naruto manga have copyrighs of Masashi Kishimoto. --Kerosene 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shinto_Monk.jpg

Also related file Shinto monks. The person in image is no shinto monk, but apparently Buddhist monk. Since Shinto has no monk (there are only laity and priests), and this file contains only one image on the above, I think it better to delete them rather than move the latter file. --Aphaia 05:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image could be uploaded again under a proper name. --Aphaia 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TypicalHumanPenisScale.jpg

Seems like mischievous self-promotion at the minimum and potentially the basis for vandalism. Do we really need this? Laurens 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. Another day, another penis. This one is better than most, actually: useful descriptive info like subject's age, measurements. (I'm not sure that encouraging the male obsession with size is such a great idea though.) I can't believe it, but  Keep for this one. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:58, 3 June 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:Igansw.jpg

Size is wrong, not particularly needed, possible incorrect license. --Bdude 07:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Arnomane --ALE! 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sudan_flag_1956_large.png

It is redundant and no longer used by any project. --Ultratomio 16:28, 3 June 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:Aiga_toiletsq_women.gif

Vector grafik is now in use. Image:Toilet_women.svg --lateiner 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 11:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warrior_2.JPG

The uploader requested a speedy deletion because he afterwards thought that it might be a copyvio. I am however unsure (it is a photo outside on a public place with borders visible) and turned this into a normal deletion. What dou you think? Arnomane 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags to be deleted after being renamed to the correct name

More to come. —Nightstallion (?) 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting about this, has been done now. —Nightstallion (?) 15:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 4, 2006

Image:Gefahrensymbol E.png

exchanged with "Hazard_E.svg".

No licence images

Copyright vio.--Morio 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg

The uploader mentioned himself here that he only scanned this picture, which is in its private collection. It is unsure, if he is the photograph or if the picture itself is in the Public Domain. --Huebi 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huebi, what' s all this mess? The image is Public Domain, because following Italian law (just read the template for italian pictures) all pictures except artistic photographs are PD after 20 years. It was made by an airman of Regia Aeronautica then later published and even used for propaganda purposes. You have not understood copyright policy! Your deletion request is absurd. As scan it is a reproduction and therefore not even covered by copyright law. Almost every older picture here in Wikipedia is a scan or an other kind of mechanical and/or electronic reproduction - what are you thinking? But anyway, it is a picture made under Italian rule in 1941, it is obviously an Italian airplane (marking of Regia Aeronautica, the airforce of fascist Italy, is clearly visible under the wing as well as squadron number on the fuselage) and every copyright is expired according to Italian law. So please be so kind and withdraw your completely unnecessary and unjustified deletion request.  Keep
Reptil (♣) 4 June 2006, 13:10 (UTC)

what is nonartistic photo according to italian law? If this picture is indeed nonartistic to italian law, then this seems perfectly fine to me. -- Gorgo 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is nonsense. The EU guideline, which will sooner or later be turned into law in Italy as well, says 70 years p.m.a. Furthermore, you can be sued in any other country for copyright violation. --Fb78 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this:
Fb78 you are completely wrong! What I wrote before is NOT nonsense! You are telling nuts and nothing else! This picture applies to actual Italian copyright law. Please read that copyright tag of the picture again and cartefully, maybe you did not fully understand it. Forget that damn stupid EU guideline which says 70 years p.m.a. because Italy has not accepted it and surely will not for the next years as there is no evidence yet. At least in Italy they have understood that a non-artistic photograph does not justify such a long copyright. I am sure you are not aware of the fact that this guideline has its origins in the spanish copyright law, maybe EU took this over for being lazy or whatsoever. You CANNOT assume that Italy will turn this into law sooner or later - this has no relevance at all and we must stick to the facts - and FACT is that this picture complies with Italian law and is therefore in the public domain. Please remember, a EU guideline is NOT a binding law. We do not have EU as a super-state over all member countries and a guideline can only turn into law if a member state approves it - not any other way. If your infamous argumentation would be followed, you would have to delete a gigantic bunch of pictures from the commons. You will not find any historic pictures like these uploaded by the original photographer, so fairly all are mechanical and/or electronic reproductions and finally nearly all scans. By the way, how could you get a picture other way than by scanning it into the PC? Again, then we would have to delete nearly all pictures here!!! Or do you want to start diputing all other pictures of similar background? If you do not like war pictures it is your own personal thing, but we should stick to the facts and not to people who just wanna delete without knowledge of the facts and competence. And, it is complete nonsense that you can be sued in any other country for copyright violation with this picture! Who the heck told you this? And who should? The manufacturer CRDA is long gone, the Regia Aeronautica as well and the original photographer is unknown. Or do you think he or his nephews will emerge these days or in future and claim his copyrights? Come on, this is ridiculous! Nobody will start legal action for this picture in other countries because original copyright holder has long gone and todays following air force organization Aeronautica Militare Italiana never claimed copyright after 1946 and if they had, it would have been expired in 1961 from the legal point of view. This discussion is superfluous and unnecessary, please let us do justice and stop this havoc caused by an incompetent user, it would be a crime to delete this picture of clear history and descent (marking of Regia Aeronautica, the airforce of fascist Italy, is clearly visible under the wing as well as squadron number on the fuselage). The picture does obviously comply with Italian copyright law of copyright expirement after 20 years for a non artistic photograph or film screenshot made in Italy and therefore it is obviously in the Public Domain. The only right thing to do is to leave with all the others within the commons.
Reptil (♣) 8 June 2006, 4:45 (UTC)

According to Commons:Licensing, the picture must be PD in the country of origin as well as in the US. It's certainly not PD in the US. Also, w:Forum shopping allows anyone to pick a place from where to sue the uploader, pick the US or Germany, if you will. We cannot allow exceptions from general Commons rules, just because you believe it won't happen. --Fb78 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fb78, please stop searching excuses in order to delete this picture by all means. And please get a hold on you and stop telling nuts! Who said to you that this picture is not Public Domain in the USA? Can you give a valid reason why it should not be? It is in full appliance as worldwide Public Domain as its copyright has expired under Italian law still in charge since 1961, so there is NO point at which you could start a lawsuit for copyright violation even in USA or Germany.

In American books and literature you will find loads of similar pictures of Regia Aeronautica of this or similar kind, as they are regarded as historical documents, there has been never a lawsuit against a book author for violating copyright. If I want to publish a book in the USA, what may well may happen in next future, you need only to have the consent of the current owner of copyright in the country of origin, if it is known, that applies worldwide for the markets this book is made for or at least for USA, if you want to sell it there.

You are completely wrong about w:Forum shopping, it is absurd to pursue copyright violation where there isn' t any. In theory you could start a lawsuit for nearly every picture, but nobody is so damn stupid to start a lawsuit against an expired national copyright or one which cannot be retrieved anymore. In pictures from other countries declared as expired copyright by country of origin US law assumes Public Domain in any case or at least assumes this by anolgy! Same thing does for example Poland for older Polish photographs without clear copyright, and USA accepts this as given fact without dispute. Or did you ever hear the contrary? No Polish picture of that kind has been deleted here in the Commons yet! If you want to start a lawsuit for copyright violation you must have at least a credible reference or proof for what you are claiming for. Otherwise courts will decline jurisdiction competence. Try this yourself and you will understand what I mean. You will certainly lose your lawsuit in a bloody way or the court will decline jurisdiction competence from the start off as in this case there is a clear Public Domain status accepted worldwide. Italian pictures with Italian expired copyright are NOT diputed in the US as Public Domain!

What you say about legal situation is also wrong from another point of view. In theory you could be sued not also for pictures on the commons, but also for those for example on German Wikipedia, because it is accessible and usable in the USA too, no matter where the servers are located. But this is theory - did you ever hear of a lawsuit? Definitely NO! Again, this is absurd and would be stupid!

One reason why legal action in such cases is very unlikely is also that the costs for legal action are in the most cases definitely in no relation to the outcome. And even more when a picture can be stated as expired national copyright accepted also in the USA, especially when a picture is regarded as historical document.

To remain with Italian photographs, older or actual ones still under copyright made and/or published by the Italian army, navy or airforce, all three military branches that obviously depend from the Italian defense ministry, can be used in Wikipedia and commons without any problems. After all, the defense ministry is the appropriate entity for picture questions and requests they hold or claim copyright – see {{ItalyDefense}}. Every picture can be used in Wikipedia and commons without any problems as said in the template:

Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate.

As I can speak Italian I will translate:

Every information supplied on this WEB page are considered for the public and can be distribute or copied

You understand that in English?

And why should these pictures not be accepted as Public Domain in the USA? Please do not try to tell me they are not accepted as PD there too - this this would be false and absurd! You will fail to prove that Italian copyright does not apply worldwide.

Let me cite now from here Commons:Licensing:


Laws about copyright differ from country to country. Generally, the commons try to apply a policy that only allows images that can be used on all (or at least most) countries. The laws of individual countries differ especially in the following points:

  • The time for which a copyright applies. In most countries, copyright expires no later than 70 years after the death of the author.
  • Status of works of the government. In many (but not all) countries, documents published by the government for official use are in the public domain.
  • Material applicable for copyright. In some jurisdictions, pictures of artistic work like architecture, sculpures, clothing etc. can not be used freely without the consent of the creator of the original artwork.

So in order to find a resonable way within the complicated international aspects of national copyright law terms there is a golden rule:

  • The copyright of the nation where the image was first published gets applied to that image (and this country-specific law decides if we consider the image as public domain in general or not).
  • So e.g. in case of a painting that was published in France please do not apply e.g. US-American copyright laws but French copyright laws to determine if this image can be considered public domain.

Relevant country-specific differences in the duration of copyright (from 70 years pma) and exceptions of the application of copyright are discussed below (countries are listed in alphabetical order):

XXXXX

= = = Italy = = =
In compliance to Italian copyright law term of copyright expires according to law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92, all non artistic photographs enter the public domain after 20 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2006, prior to the 1st of January, 1986) after they were first published, this rule is valid also for italian film's screenshot. Artistic photographs enter in the public domain after 70 years.

XXXXX

Understood everything? See also: {{PD-Italy}}

The Picture I uploaded is NO derivative work, artistic photograph or whatsoever so it can be reproduced and used freely as its copyright is expired in Italy and therefore worldwide. No person or entity can claim copyrights that expired after Italian law. And who should? The manufacturer CRDA is long gone, the Regia Aeronautica as well and the original photographer is unknown. Nor he or his descendents that very unlikely will emerge these days or in future can claim copyrights. Nobody will start legal action for this picture in other countries because original copyright holder has long gone and todays following air force organization Aeronautica Militare Italiana never claimed copyright after 1946 and if they had, it would have been expired in 1961 from the legal point of view.

I noticed that I made a mistake writing created, uploaded and nominated by Reptil in the Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg as I proposed it for candidate as picture of the day. Of course, as said, I did not take the picture in 1941, as surely not one of these or similar pictures have been uploaded here by the original photographers as many are dead and gone today. It was the first time I proposed a candidate for picture of the day and mistook the word "created" for having created this proposal for picture of the day and not the photo itself. In fact in the licensing for the picture itself I did NOT mention myself as author, but unnown, as is for this picture made by an unnown airman of Regia Aeronautica. I have to apologise for this mistake. The deletion request of user Huebi is unjustified in any way. First of all because in the picture license I never claimed to be the author of the photo and second because the picture is clearly PD after expiration of Italian copyright after 20 years. This is accepted worldwide.

Fb 78, if you do not like this picture of an old bomber unloading bombs it is your personal affair, but please stop trying to "sell white for black" with completely false or even void arguments. You are not competent in airplanes and history and even law, so please keep away from enforcing unjustified deletion requests telling lies and deceiving all the other users!
Reptil (♣) 10 June 2006, 6:05 (UTC)

Being competent in airplanes or history is not necessary to disucuss about copyright violence. And stop offending other people using words like "nuts" and others. I didnt mentioned that you claimed to be author, the deltion request is not unjustified cause i think the license does not comply with commons. If ypu believe this is not true show facts, not insults. --Huebi 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huebi, please do not make me and all the other fellow users here laugh! Still not had enough? Not read my last statement above? How deplorable! What you say is completely wrong, to use more diplomatic words. The picture complies with Commons rules! As being outraged about your unneccessary deletion request that cannot be justified neither by you, nor by any other else, if I would not be a very correct person as I am, I would have had an obvious reason to call many other things as well. Maybe you do not properly understand what "nuts" means? No trouble at all, as I saw in your user page, you are of German language and so I will translate that word for you in German, it means "Unsinn", and nothing else. This is NOT a personal offense! I did not offend other people, this is not my style, but beware of offending me, that is all I say! And I did not insult anyone with bad language or whatsoever! The very insult in itself is your ridiculously superflous and unneccessary deletion request! It is an insult against the whole community of people who put a lot of hard work in here and against a legally very clear matter of facts! But unfortunately you seem not willing to try to understand anything in this case I guess. You want that picture deleted by all means because you do not like it, right? Too bad! Your claim I would have violated copyright is simply false! Anyway I have the right to defend my interests against unjustified matters against me. Yes it is neccessary to be competent in airplanes and history because this allows to be able to determine and categorize pictures in historical context as well as all the following stuff like copyrights. This picture has been made by an airman of Regia Aeronautica, or do you think it has been made from for instance from inside a formation of German Dornier Do 217, British Avro Lancasters or American Boeing B-17 to have another copyright status? This is more then obvious that it is a picture taken by an Italian and you cannot prove the contrary! So it is a picture taken under Italian rule and was also published in Italy for the first time. Therefore Italian copyright applies and in accordance to this law its copyright is long expired, a fact that is also accepted without dispute even in the USA. So as copyright has eypired, it is allowed to be distributed, copied, reproduced mechanically (printed) or electronically (scanned) without any doubt!

In your last message above this one you wrote the following: the deltion request is not unjustified cause i think the license does not comply with commons. WHAT? May I correct you, you did NOT say that in your deletion request! Let me cite you from the top in this discussion: It is unsure, if he is the photograph or if the picture itself is in the Public Domain. So please make sure what the heck you want at all before requesting something here!

After all it is you claiming I violated copyright without not a single proof. Would you then please explain how I violated copyright? It is NOT unsure if I was the original photographer, as I wrote Unknown as author in the original tag of the picture. You should just have had a look before! For the reason why the picture is Public Domain please read my last statements, there I have already showed all the facts and legal context. Please read also Commons:Licensing and PD-Italy again and again until you understand it at last! Damn after all it is in English!

And finally, you seem to have a very strange understanding of law matters. It is not enough to say I violated copyright and the picture has to be deleted. You cannot say one is a murderer and then he or she is subsequently jailed without proof of guiltiness. First it is you who has to proof I violated copyright, not me that I have not. But I have anyway already showed the facts and the legal situation in my statements before, you need onty to read them!

So please get a hold on you and put your cards on the table (if you have any) to proof I violated copyright, if you can at all (most unkllikely!), or stop grumbling and deceiving all the other fellow users with your deletion request that cannot be justified in any way. Sorry for you, Huebi, or whatever your nickname here is, but your completely void argumentation is not suitable at all to force deletion of this picture. If you like it or not!
Reptil (♣) 11 June 2006, 5:00 (UTC)

The only Person grumbling here is you. We will see how you will react if the picture is deleted. Stop insulting, and i will read your thread. But not this way. --Huebi 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I really did not want to insult or offend anyone here. I have also admitted to have made a mistake when proposing it for picture of the day as stated in a thread before. This may have caused some confusion indeed. Let me now cite myself:

I noticed that I made a mistake writing created, uploaded and nominated by Reptil in the Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg as I proposed it for candidate as picture of the day. Of course, as said, I did not take the picture in 1941, as surely not one of these or similar pictures have been uploaded here by the original photographers as many are dead and gone today. It was the first time I proposed a candidate for picture of the day and mistook the word "created" for having created this proposal for picture of the day and not the photo itself. In fact in the licensing for the picture itself I did NOT mention myself as author, but unnown, as is for this picture made by an unnown airman of Regia Aeronautica. I have to apologise for this mistake.

Yes, I may have been furious. This was mostly because of many erroneous deletions of older pictures under Soviet PD what really outraged me. All I want is justice, nothing else. I have put down my arguments in my thread. It would be nice if you and the other users would read them. If there is still anything unclear, feel free to write again.
Reptil (♣) 11 June 2006, 14:10 (UTC)

PD in Italy and no potential copyrightholder in sight, so it seems OK to keep the image. --::Slomox:: >< 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, seems so. Keep. Darkone 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons. --Delirium 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gefahrensymbol C.png

Vector graphic is now in use. lateiner 10:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same image. The flasks are different, the place where the drop hits the hand is different. It looks nice, the svg, but it is not exactly the same, so please keep the png. Effeietsanders 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are different, yes, but why? I guess there is only one official form, so which is the more appropiate? --::Slomox:: >< 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If both are been used on the world, both should be kept. Commons is not only for official pictures of course. Effeietsanders 11:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a loke to some Cemicals and there symbole on it. But I thinke it is diverent in some States. The png image is form Germany and the other one I dont know. --lateiner 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leni Riefenstahl.jpg and Image:412px-RiefenstahlElevator.jpg

Copyright not yet expired. 50 years rule not applicable. --ALE! 14:06, 4 June 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:3865531512.jpg

What is this? can it realy be a bookcover and if so is it under free license --Grön 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Yes, it is an bookcover and all licenses are at WiKu's edition. There is no problem with the license. But please delete - in the moment it was an error. Greeting --St.Gera 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 17:59, 11 June 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:Carracci-Assumption of the Virgin Mary.jpg

There is a frame, so it's a 3D picture, and www.wga.hu specify The Web Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited without the authorization of their legal owner. Calame 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept--Shizhao 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Derobel.jpg

  1. Quelle: www.der-obel.de / Andreas Obering
  2. Freigabe: Für Wikipedia etc. freigegeben.

Lizensierung nicht ausreichend Marcela 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bitte bei einem delete-request auch die entsprechenden templates setzen siehe oben hier auf der Seite (auch auf deutsch Commons:Löschanträge) -- Gorgo 00:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BlnHauptbahnhof34.jpg

Es liegt keine Genehmigung der DB AG vor Marcela 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a public building (open to the general public), no permission is needed from Deutsche Bahn. Keep. Angr 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Und? Keep 217.227.175.60 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interior of a private building, not a public space (Öffentlicher Raum) as understood by German law. So it isn't a subject of Panoramafreiheit. It's only proper when you stand on public ground. Deutsche Bahn is a company (though still owned by the state). Shaqspeare 10:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, we can ask for permission. Shaqspeare 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This request is close to frivolous. Kph 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Berlin Hauptbahnhof pano 06.jpg

Es liegt keine Genehmigung der DB AG vor Marcela 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: No permission was given by the German Railway. Shaqspeare 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I now do have permission (in fact a release for the image) from Deutsche Bahn AG. Ideally Deletion Request should be terminated, but I guess people are coming up with new reasons every day. I requested a release from the architects. Let's see if they can be bothered to answer, with all the media attention they got. --Dschwen 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a public building (open to the general public), no permission is needed from Deutsche Bahn. Keep. Angr 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warum sollte man dafür eine brauchen? Keep 217.227.175.60 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interior of a private building, not a public space (Öffentlicher Raum) as understood by German law. So it isn't a subject of Panoramafreiheit. It's only proper when you stand on public ground. Deutsche Bahn is a company (though still owned by the state). Shaqspeare 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos von Bahnhöfen (innen) unterliegen nicht der Panoramafreiheit 217.88.148.56 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Genau, Bahnhofsbilder dürfen nur nach schriftlicher Genehmigung der Deutschen Bahn veröffentlicht werden. Die Meinung, das ein Bahnhof ein "Öffentlicher Platz" ist, ist falsch. Bahnhöfe sind nicht öffentlich, sondern gehören der DB, somit darf (wie in einem privaten Garten) nur nach Genehmigung des Besitzers fotografiert werden. Delete --RvM 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this and the above case really are a violation of Deutsche Bahn's copyright, then we need a general policy at Commons, not just a vote on these two images. There must be hundreds of photographs of the insides of buildings that will have to be deleted if these count as copyvios. Just to take some examples from the gallery of the nominator, User:Marcela: if these pictures of Berlin Hauptbahnhof are copyvios, then so are the following pictures of his:
  1. Image:Sekt-im-supermarkt.jpg
  2. Image:Obst-supermarkt.jpg
  3. Image:Kaese-supermarkt.jpg
  4. Image:Fleischtheke-supermarkt.jpg
  5. Image:Fett-supermarkt.jpg
  6. Image:Bier-im-supermarkt.jpg
  7. Image:Spirituosen-im-supermarkt.jpg
  8. Image:Obst-im-supermarkt.jpg
And indeed virtually every picture taken indoors. Angr 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the supermarket interior is a kind of "trivial work". The station isn't. Shaqspeare 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the supermarket interior is any more trivial than the train station. Angr 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The way of displaying cheese in the supermarket isn't a subject of copyright in most cases. A photo of it is not recogniseble for both the author and location of what it is depicting - that's why its subject should be classified as trivial. Anybody in any place can put some cheese together in a cupboard. A photo of whole supermarket interior would be of course just the same as the photo of the station. The foto of some cheese is just like a photo of some part of the regular track. Shaqspeare 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the REWE logos and the merchandise lables? They sure are not free and there certainly is no "Panoramafreiheit" in a supermarket. --Dschwen 07:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The REWE logos etc. are a matter of trade marks (Markenzeichen), not copyright. That's an entirely different thing. We're talking about copyright here. And you're right, there is no Panoramafreiheit inside buildings. All German speakers, please read de:Panoramafreiheit and de:Wikipedia:Bilder von fremdem Eigentum before closing the discussion. --Fb78 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarks (Markenzeichen) are copyrighted, so they are relevant to this discussion. Photographs of the REWE trademarks and other trademarks are copyvios, regardless of whether they are photographed indoors or outdoors. Angr 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarks != Copyright, Angr. Please read some basic information about the topic. --Fb78 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This request is close to frivolous. Kph 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep---Nina- 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I formally requested permission now. Would have been nice to be notified of this deletion-request in advance anyway... --Dschwen 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do also consider the architect's copyright in this case. This should be our biggest concern. --Fb78 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, await the reply to Dschwen's permission request. (I assume it will be granted) In my opinion there is no further need for discussion as we will doubtlessly have to accept the decision of the DB. ASM 09:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The architect's copyright are the drawings of the building. Buildings are free to photo and this are a pubilc building too. ---Nina- 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Buildings are not "free to photo". A building is treated equal to a sculpture or any other work of art: You always need the creator's permission to distribute photos of it. Any architect does hold the copyright to the building created from the plans. See the Louvre Pyramid discussion, see the Atomium discussion. Do you get that?
Now there's one exception to the rule, called de:Panoramafreiheit in German. This exception allows you to publish photos of permanently installed works that are taken from public grounds.
In this case, the picture was not taken from public grounds, but from inside the building, which is private property of the Deutsche Bahn AG. No matter what the Deutsche Bahn AG says about taking pictures of train stations, it is a violation of the architect's copyright. If you say it isn't or just wish it weren't so, you simply don't know what you're talking about. --Fb78 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my country, Norway you are free to take pictures of buildings: Lovdata § 24. Byggverk kan fritt avbildes. And there are no limitations taking pictures inside the building. But i would put the name of the architect in the photo page. You have the same CONSOLIDATED ACT ON COPYRIGHT 2003* 24.–(3) Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public.---Nina- 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the picture was taken in Germany, not in Norway. German UrhG §59 says: "Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht." My translation: "It is allowed with the means of painting, graphics, photography or film to copy, distribute and publish works that are permanently installed at public streets, roads or places. For buildings, this is only vaild for the exterior view." See also de:Panoramafreiheit. --Fb78 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does this in fact mean that no photographs taken indoors in Germany can be used on Commons unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years? That's going to be a lot of pictures to delete, I think! What about Image:Green-eyed cat.jpg and Image:Angr.jpg? They were both taken indoors in Germany, and I don't know if the architect has been dead for 70 years. Do these images violate the architect's copyright under German law? Angr 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, please use some common sense. The pictures you mentioned do not show the architecture, but a person and a cat. We're talking about pictures that are intented to show the architecture itself. And they're only a problem if the architecture is actually creative enough to be copyrightable. FMany buildings are probably not copyrightable, but the Berlin Hauptbahnhof certainly is. Its architect, gmp, is currently suing the Deutsche Bahn for making changes to their architectural plans - that's a copyright violation as well. --Fb78 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't have to worry if I just say the intent of Image:BlnHauptbahnhof34.jpg is to show a large number of people, a dog, and a train? Angr 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something you decide. If the photographer is sued by the architect, the judge will have to decide whether the image intends to show the architecture or something else. All you can do is guess. Or look for older verdicts that can be used as a reference. Wikipedia is a pretty good start for some basic information on copyright. --Fb78 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the photographer of Image:BlnHauptbahnhof34.jpg. Angr 19:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. The judge won't care what your intention was, she will decide from the picture if it shows copyrighted material or not. --Fb78 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got a friendly mail from Deutsche Bahn AG: zu Ihrer u. a. Anfrage erteilen wir Ihnen hiermit gern die Freigabe. Bitte melden, falls Sie darüber hinaus noch ein besonderes Dokument benötigen.. Translation: we happily grant you a release/clearance. And they offer to provide it in writing. Now I'm happy with this email as far as it was DB property I took the picture on. The next mail will go Meinhard von Gerkan. Lets see how he replies. --Dschwen 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Permission is irrelevant, isn't it? As I understand it, Wikimedia projects can't use copyrighted images "by permission". An image at Commons has to be completely free, not used by permission. Angr 09:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are interpreting. Neither did I use the word permission nor did I state it was for Wikimedia Projects exclusively. --Dschwen 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in doubt that Bahn AG has the right to allow to use the work of the architect to everyone by allowing putting a picture on commons. --Historiograf 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 5, 2006

Image:TV-flag-lg.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Tuvalu.svg --jed 09:24, 5 June 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:Le corbusier.jpg

Don't see any reason why this should be in public domain. The author isn't know, but the photography isn't even older than 50-60 years. Shaqspeare 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 11:37, 7 June 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:Modulor.jpg

The same for this. Two-dimensional diagram, draw by Le Corbusier (died 1965). Or maybe there is any reason? Shaqspeare 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! 19:52, 11 June 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:Cloofsstore.jpg

Photoshopped image, used for a hoax article on Wikipedia. See [41]. - 195.113.23.173 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC), Mike Rosoft.[reply]

deleted by User:Barcex --ALE! 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JawalogoNEW.jpg

Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 14:12, 5 June 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:SondreSandoy.JPG

Please delete. Owner (me) wants to upload another version with less meta data. Thanks. LexPics

deleted by User:Fb78

Image:Adbc.gif, Image:Adbc structure.gif

copyvio, not free --Shizhao 16:36, 5 June 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:Wappen wittnau breisgau.JPG

Better and larger version is now available: Image:Wappen Wittnau Breisgau.png --Rosenzweig 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alvheim 001.jpg and Image:Alvheim 002.jpg

Claimed to be GFDL, but the e-mail with the permission ([42], in Norwegian) says "As far as I know all images in frp.no can be used freely". I do not consider this clear enough to claim that the images are GFDL, although a link to the GFDL is provided by the user asking in the original e-mail asking for permission.

The user uploading the images does not see the need to ask again using Commons:Email templates.

An image from frp.no has been deleted previously, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Image:Siv_Jensen.jpg. Kjetil_r 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I now read the e-mail carefully, I see that the user asking for permission linked to the GNU general public licence, not the GFDL. I think this fact further weakens the uploader's GFDL claim. Kjetil_r 19:55, 6 June 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:VDV flag.svg

Image:VDV flag.svg was uploaded again with a more suitable name. All its uses were replaced by Image:Flag of the Russian Airborne Troops.svg.--Darz Mol 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tagged with {{Badname}} --ALE! 12:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Pompeii the last day 1.jpg

  • This picture was produced by a private television company. Why should they give anything away for free? And especially, for reproduction too?
  • In such a case we need the written permission here. This should be no problem, because the uploader claims to have it in hand. --AM 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quote of the email giving permission -- Gorgo 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, why isn't there a copy of this email with the name of the person who was giving the permission? -- AM 18:10, 14 June 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:Carlmondayiswatchingyou.jpg

Unlikely to not have rights reserved. Even if the person who changed it wanted to release their rights, it seems to have been on a copyrighted, unlicensed image. --Rory096 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, items like this are speedyable. (obviously not going to be used in a good faith educational sense, only vandalism) pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

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:Johnnydiva.JPG

REASON I only uploaded this photo to see how Wikimedia Commons worked so I could upload future photos. Now I'd like my photo deleted.

  • ARGUMENTS
There is no such file. --ALE! 09:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
corrected file name. /Fred Chess 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be speedable, or not? I have put a speedy tag on the description page. --ALE! 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Mormegil

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:Blason Normandie.jpg

same Image:Blason Normandie.png--Shizhao 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Location of Beograd.gif

This map is not right. Serbia does not have official boreders like this. User who made it was not looking sources. Please see map of Serbia, and you'll see what is right. --Pokrajac 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It looks ok, nothing is wrong with it. Shaqspeare 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I looked on the map. Location is perfect. -- AM 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cussac-1.jpg and Image:Cussac-2.jpg

Someone claiming to be the photographer sent a ticket to m:OTRS requesting they be removed as a copyright violation. They have yet to give any proof that they are, in fact, the owner, and I will update this notice should they do so. I understand the tag {{PD-Art}} because it is a photograph of cave drawings, but I imagine there are many other photographs of the cave that could be used. Shell Kinney 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We had a case like this before. Conclusion was that PD-Art cannot apply to caves because caves are 3D, not 2D, therefore there is artistic expression in taking photos of it, and so they attain copyright in taking such a picture. An understandable mistake though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:53, 6 June 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.

Category:United States National Historic Parks

REASON: These protected areas are called "National Historical Parks". See: Category:National Historical Parks of the United States. --Eoghanacht 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Fb78

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.

Georges Braque

There's no point in having a page for him if we can't upload his pictures for 28 years yet. Delete. --Angr 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, I speedied it (no images). As always, anyone can feel free to recreate it should some relevant FREE images become available. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:58, 7 June 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:Rambo_IV_poster.jpg

This is the official Rambo IV teaser poster, I do not believe that the uploader holds copyright on it. CyrilB 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. To the uploader: Please read Commons:Licensing. --Fb78 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Image:Hutte Russian.jpg

Questionable licence; the pictured content was clearly not created on 6 June 2006 (as stated by the uploader). --JeremyA 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the uploader is talking about his QV-5700 CASIO  :) --Tarawneh 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License is wrong, should be PD-ineligible. Keep. --Fb78 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PD-ineligible would definitely be the wrong license, as this image certainly contains original authorship. It could be PD-Soviet, though the accuracy of that claim is uncertain. Angr 09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know anything about copyright, please don't assume you do. There is no original authorship in this image. It's a simple book cover, consisting of a couple of words + layout. Anyone can do this and it is not protected in any way. If it showed a poem or prose or an image, it would perhaps be protected. If you read German well, you can read de:Schöpfungshöhe. --Fb78 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Germany's laws on de:Schöpfungshöhe are different from those in the U.S. Since the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the U.S., U.S. law has to take precedence, although violating laws of other countries isn't allowed either. The threshold of originality in the U.S. is extremely low; both this and the REWE logos mentioned above are original enough to make them copyrightable. Logos aren't allowed at Commons (just look where the template {{Logo}} redirects to), and this book cover has far more original authorship than a logo. In fact, the presence of a logo on this book cover is already itself enough reason why this image isn't acceptable at Commons. Angr 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dissertation proposal.pdf

not suitable material for the commons --JeremyA 03:19, 7 June 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:Underground-Railway-in-China-icon.png

Claimed as GFDL, but no evidence suggests that this is GFDL. It appears to be an icon copied from an official website (which would make it copyrighted) rather than something created specifically for wikicommons/wikipedia. --Jiang 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it with the correct template ({{subst:nsd}}) -- Gorgo 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, handled elsewhere. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:09, 8 June 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:Mapa_da_Póvoa_de_Varzim.jpg

clone and bad version of Image:Mapa_da_Póvoa_de_Varzim.png. If possible: Speedy delete. --PedroPVZ 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Duplicate, with less definion. Request by uploader. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 10:03, 11 June 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:Variable resistor.svg

There was a previously existing version of this image (Image:Variable Resistor.svg) which was updated to the corrected version. The only link to Image:Variable resistor.svg from other wikis has been removed, so it should be deleted to avoid confusion. -- Dr. Schorsch 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete looks duplicate. --Tomia 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{Duplicate}} --ALE! 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ALE! 12:29, 12 June 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:Police in Pickering.jpg

Content from enwiki said "from the CBC, public domain, although cannot be used to make a profit in any way," so it's unlikely that CBC has changed its policies to now allow commercial use. --Rory096 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Fred chessplayer --ALE! 17:57, 11 June 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:Margaret Mead.jpg

In due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Margaret_Mead.jpg this image is not in the GNU FDL (it is a Fair Use one). -- John N. (@ me) 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tagged with {{Copyvio}} --ALE! 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Next time I'll do it with copyvio. Regards, John N. (@ me) 13:42, 8 June 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:Zwerg Miere.jpg

REASON upped again as Image:Saxifraga aizoides.jpg in better quality --Tigerente 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Same image but higher resolution. --Raymond de 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yö 2005-2-11 hullu poro.jpg, Image:Yö kuolematon2.jpg, Image:Olli lindholm levi 2005-2-11.jpg, Image:Olli lindholm levi 2005-2-11 not performing.jpg

"Photograph credits must be included when using pics" — stating the obvious minimum requirement established by copyright laws is not a "for any purpose" license. --Samulili 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Wouldn't template:attribution be appropriate for these? --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. IMHO, the copyright owner of those pictures has not given anyone the license to do what they want with the picture. The owner has only stated that when the pictures are used ("fair use") they must be attributed. -Samulili 06:28, 9 June 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:Neckarsulm LöwenBrunnen01.JPG

duplicate/old version Joachim Köhler 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carline vulgaris0.jpg

Image:Carline vulgaris1.jpg

Both images: very poor image quality --Arafi 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both redundant to Image:Carlina_vulgaris_170805.jpg so  Delete -- Gorgo 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ophiopogon jaburan1.jpg

poor image quality, a better "identical" image can be found at Image:Ophiopogon jaburan0.jpg --Arafi 20:26, 7 June 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:Jacik Steinmetz.jpg and Image:Brueckenhof.jpg

Uploaded to german wikipedia in december 2005, since then without Licens. Uploader was asked severeal times without any reaction. Speedy? --dbenzhuser 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. {{subst:nld}} added --ALE! 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NathalieM.Karlsen.jpg

The image was used on no.wikipedia to illustrate a vanity article. If the information given there was correct, the girl is 14 years old. Under Norwegian copyright law section 45, her parents or legal guardians (as she is too young to give legal consent) would have to agree to publication; as this is actually part of the copyright law and not a separate privacy law, I believe the photographer might not have the right to release it into the public domain. --Cnyborg 00:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Image:CSU-Logo 1998.jpg

unknown license since September 2005, no answer to Raymond_de/OTRS since March 2006 --Avatar 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has OTRS access? This is your job! pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today I sent an email to CSU again. If no positive answer --> Delete. --Raymond de 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you said the press department sent it to us through OTRS! What does the ticket say? Isn't that enough? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't get the threshold of originality (or German Schöpfungshöhe) to underlie copyright. So it should be kept. --::Slomox:: >< 11:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree. If we used this basis most logos would be kept here. {{PD-ineligible}} should be kept to an absolute minimum. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad because many images could then be used on Commons? I don't get your point. --::Slomox:: >< 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think there was "no original authorship" in this logo? If this logo is PD-ineligible, then the Wikimedia Foundation logo is definitely so. Not to mention the Microsoft logo, and definitely McDonalds - there's not much to a yellow "M", is there? We should not be trying to find ways to pretend that logos are free. We'll just open ourselves up to a legal minefield. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not a copyvio by any standard. It's far too simple to be protected by copyright. Seriously. You can't pick a word, print it in a nice font and then say it's copyrighted and noone else can do the same. There's just not enough creativity involved. Therefore, it can only be protected as a trademark. --Fb78 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe we are still having this discussion. Am I the only one that can see a quite fancy lion in the middle of that stupid picture? Have you seen Microsoft's logo? It's much simpler than this. McDonalds is the simplest thing I've seen. Even simpler is the Wikimedia Foundation logo! Can we have this debate in reality?? Besides which the original deletion debate was not even about the alleged originality or otherwise of this logo. It's about what license the owners licensed it under. Gah!!! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fancy lion is just taken from the Bavarian coat of arms. The owner has not to licence it, when it is PD. And yes, from a copyright point of view the other logos you name are also free (but unfree from a trademark point of view, so this has to be mentioned, when we keep it). This opinion is explicitly based on German legislation as described in de:Schöpfungshöhe#Aufwand_unerheblich, which does not know sweat of the brow. --::Slomox:: >< 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep pfctdayelise is confusing copyright and other rights. Slomox is absolutely right. There is according to German law no copyvio and CSU is a German institution. Not to give free the Wikimedia logo is a decision on the field of trademark law not of copyright. According to German law and the decions of Bundesverfassungsgericht Wikimedia logo isn't copyright-protected in Germany --Historiograf 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • German law is irrelevant. Wikimedia policy is that logos can be used only under a fair-use claim, and Commons doesn't permit fair-use images. Angr 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you people please decide on one policy. On this very site, in the discussion for Image:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg, I'm told by User:Reptil in endless tirades that only Italian law is valid and not US law. In the CDU logo case, German law is claimed to irrelevant and only US law is valid. Whatever you want, folks, but please publish a policy once and for all that is decisive on those matters and don't leave every semi-expert running around and pick the guideline they agree with the most. --Fb78 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well said! --Historiograf 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't notice, we're all semi-experts (or more likely non-experts) trying to do the best we can. Some of the questions that come up are not clear even for lawyers (like German vs US law). If you can think of some good way to solve these problems then please let us all know. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich möchte mich dagegen verwahren, dass ich lediglich ein Semi-Experte bin. Dass Pfctdayelise kein Experte ist, wird man wohl behaupten dürfen. Wir haben klare Logo-Regelungen auf de, mit denen wir sehr gut leben. Ist ein Logo urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt, weil es zu alt oder die Schöpfungshöhe nicht erreicht, nehmen wir es, desgleichen urheberrechtlich geschützte Logos dauerhaft im Straßenbild (Panoramafreiheit). Es ist ein Irrglaube, dass Werke unter GNU FDL in jeder Hinsicht frei sind. Bilder lebender Personen dürfen nicht kommerziell ohne deren Genehmigung genutzt werden, auch wenn sie der Fotograf unter GNU FDL stellt. Die Olympischen Ringe sind durch Sonderschutz geschützt. Unzählige hier fotografierte Gegenstände sind vom Geschmacksmusterschutz betroffen. Wappen sind namensrechtlich oder öffentlich-rechtlich geschützt. Die GNU FDL betrifft nur das Urheberrecht, keine anderen Rechte. Ändert endlich diese bescheuerte Logo-Policy! Wenn ich mich recht entsinne, hat Villy von der Foundation derlei angeregt, aber die Nichtskönner hier haben es hintertrieben. --Historiograf 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historiograf, as you have argued for english being the lingua franca on this page, you shouldn't keep back your "harsh" opinion from non-german speakers...--Wiggum 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. I've never heard of any political party giving a permission for unrestricted use of its logo. Besides, the image clearly contains artistic elements. Historiograf, if you wish to question the knowledge of Pfctdayelise or anyone else here, please stick to English. Valentinian (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read Historiograf's comment (it's to be found in both, the English and the German one). There is no need to get permission if it does not fall under copyright, so your comment is pointless. In fact the use is restricted, but not through copyright. And no, restriction is no problem. Respecting these resctrictions is duty of the person using it in a specific context. If I take a photo of George W. Bush (or every other person) from Commons and make an extremely libelous photomontage of it, this maybe would be illegal, if it hurts his personal rights. But does this mean the photo can't be GNU-FDL or PD, cause you can't modify it as you want? Of course not, personal rights are independent from copyright. And no, according to German jurisdiction, the logo does not contain artistic elements, that are copyrightable. --::Slomox:: >< 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg

(from de.wikipedia deletion request) Der FIFA World Cup-Pokal ist offensichtlich urheberrechtlich als Werk der bildenden Künste geschützt. Er wurde 1971 vom Italiener Silvio Gazzaniga entworfen und die Schutzfrist wäre deshalb selbst dann noch nicht abgelaufen, wenn der Mann direkt danach tot umgefallen wäre. Während das Foto als solches unter einer freien Lizenz steht, verhindert das Urheberrecht am abgebildeten Cup jegliche Nutzung des Fotos außerhalb des engen Rahmens eines Zitats. Das entspricht zwar der tatsächlichen Benutzung in Wikipedia-Artikeln, nach den derzeitigen Richtlinien reicht das aber nicht, weil das wesentlich mehr Einschränkungen sind als bei der bei Wikipedia grade noch akzeptierten urheberrechtlichen Ausnahme der Panoramafreiheit (die zwar nonderivative für die entsprechenden Bildteile ist, aber wenigstens uneingeschränkte kommerzielle Nutzung erlaubt). Fotos bei Wikipedia sollen von jedermann kommerziell ausgeschlachtet und wenn es nicht grade Panoramafreiheit ist auch beliebig verändert werden dürfen, nicht nur für Zitatzwecke in journalistischen oder wissenschaftlichen Kontexten verwendbar sind. --Rtc 12:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies for Image:Replica World Cup.jpg and Image:FIFA Worldcup Copy for Germany 1990.jpg.

Rough translation of Rtc's request: "The FIFA World Cup trophy is protected as a work of the arts. It was designed by Silvio Gazzaniga in 1971 and therefor isn't in the public domain. While the photography itself is published under a free license, the copyright of the trophy itself doesn't allow using the photo as anything else than a quote (or fair use). According to the current Wikicommons guildelines that's not free enough." See also the discussion on Action figures above. --Fb78 08:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to German jurisdiction (Bundesverfassungsgericht) works of applied arts are often not protected with copyright but according to Geschmacksmustergesetz. The cup is a work of applied art. See the discussion on de with further arguments against the opinions of Rtc --Historiograf 19:59, 9 June 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:Harimandir.Sahib.at.night.jpg

Under "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0". Not sure if this licence is acceptable on Commons because cannot find information on it and/or links. --Sukh 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. See Commons:Licensing for details. --EugeneZelenko 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schamlippen.png

Looks like something taken directly from a porn movie. No metadata, and this picture makes up 3 of user's 5 contributions. -- Jon Harald Søby 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skann0002.jpg and Image:Fjellbåtlag logo.jpg

Source seems to be http://fjellbaatlag.com/ , but there is no gfdl nor cc-by-sa licenses. --Tomia 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schleswig Holstein ostrzeliwuje Westerplatte 39 09 01 b.jpg

german photographer, so pd-polish doesn't apply. --Jpetersen 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unlikely that a polish photographer has recorded the very beginning of the german aggression against poland in 1939. Therefore Delete.--Wiggum 12:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely is just your persononal POV, please prove to me it was not a Polish photographer. It looks to me more like copyright paranoia - no offence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I doubt the nationality of the photographer is a factor in copyright. At least that was not the case in both Polish and German copyright laws of the time, not to mention modern laws. Halibutt 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

Image:Ontology architecture.pdf

Nor suitable material for the commons --JeremyA

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:Nihon wa hansei shiru.jpg

  • 東亜日報(Dong-a Ilbo)ホームページからのコピー。 [43](japanese)トップページ[44](korean)で無断複製を禁止している。
  • 동아일보 홈페이지에서 퍼온 것.[45](japanese) 첫 페이지에서[46](korean)에서 무단복사가 금지되어 있다.--hyolee2 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate shields

--SPUI 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tiananmen Hand Poster.jpg

no source, and may copyvio. --Shizhao 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ba-palais grassalkovich front.jpeg

no source--Shizhao 06:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Provmap-granada.png

This file has been superseded by image:Provincia de Granada.png.--Shizhao 06:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marck.jpg

I have nominated this image for deleted because I find it not encyclopedic. Google does not really know about any 'Marck Christensen'. Siebrand 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it were being used on a userpage somewhere, it would be okay, but it isn't, so delete. Angr 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ehr, would it? I'm very much against uploading images solely for user pages. Is there a guideline that support your point of view? Please show I to me and I'll agree. Siebrand 11:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no guideline, but the fact is that people upload pictures of themselves for their user pages. Do you seriously think, if they use five or six wikis, they shouldn't upload to the Commons? Also see Category:Wikipedians. They are useful, in some broad sense, to Wikimedia projects. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • en:Wikipedia:User_page says you can add a little info about yourself. I assume the may include photos -- "You might want to add quotes that you like, or a picture, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images". But it also says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia.", which means you shouldn't upload lots of rubbish such as random images, scribbles, etc., just to put on your user page. / Fred Chess 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, unused and does not look to be useful to any Wikimedia project. --Pmsyyz 04:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, just useless.

Image:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.png

same Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png--Shizhao 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Argentina (civil).svg

practically the same as Image:Flag of Argentina (alternative).svg. I have change all references from the "civil" version to the "alternative" version. Therefore the image is not used any more and there should be only one SVG version. --ALE! 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bretonisches Sprachgebiet.jpg

Commercial use is not allowed. --Phrood 10:45, 9 June 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:Konstantstromquelle jfet.png

Dupe image because of an upload error -- Wdwd 12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There is no need to put duplicates here, jsut tag them as speedies.

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:Rtl4 new.gif

fairuse logo Michiel1972 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg

I have learned that the Seal of Nebraska is protected by a permission-only license (see here for details); therefore, it can't be available on Commons. (In addition, the licensing status of the other 49 state seals should be examined, as many of them are likely to be protected in ways that most other images are not.) – Swid (talk | edits) 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You should not confuse copyvio and other rights Please contact the COA-project here at Commons --Historiograf 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sarah Michelle Gellar 001.jpg

The only source is an email address to an unknown recipient. Thuresson 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Childwithdimples.jpg

Claimed to be work of en:User:Oahc but in reality actual source is [47] which seems to have no connection to Oahc. Also see w:User talk:Icarus3#Image:Childwithdimples.jpg wherein Oahc appears to admit s/he is not the author. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my fault, I had not properly verified the copyright of the image when I uploaded it from Wikipedia. The image apparently is already deleted there, for the same motives. I would vote to delete it here as well. Leslie 07:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duesentrieb/Pages by number of images

Outdated. Created in November 2004. / Fred Chess 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page. Have a look - there are quite a few pages that have grwon way too big... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All pictures of little girls uploaded by User:Belginusanl

User:Belginusanl takes photos of random little girls he sees in public and uploads them to Wikipedia. Not only is this at least vaguely creepy, and rather unrelated to the main purposes of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, a look at his user page also reveals that his licence conditions are somewhat dubious with respect to Wikimedia Commons -- and a potentially significant problem is that taking individual "portraits" in this way raises privacy issues, and possibly even legal issues. Did Belginusanl get the girls' parents' permission? Can Belginusanl document that he got the girls' parent's permission. Does Belginusanl actually need a model release? Minimal educational or informational value plus maximal potential problems equals delete, by my calculations. AnonMoos 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

etc. etc. etc.

  • Hm, I warned him about the license, still hasn't changed it. If he doesn't change it within a week I will delete all his images with it regardless of the content. Apart from that, ACK AnonMoos. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them - in several U.S. states (including Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered) the law prohibits displays of an person's image without consent (or of a minor's image without parental consent). BD2412 T 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: I'm getting quite suspicious about this user: he once placed Image:Twolittlegirls.JPG on the Dutch wiki, saying he had permission from the parents, moved the image to Commons when we wanted to delete it, and in the end, it apparently got deleted because of the parents request, according to the log. Also, he place a large amount of pictures of little girls in a gallery on nl:Kind (Child in Dutch) only yesterday. The gallery was the same as in Little girl, with some extra pictures added to it. (apparently the contents of Child. I don't understand why all this images should be uploaded: they serve no purpose whatsoever, and are not even in proper categories. --Tuvic 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, incompatible license conditions. --Pmsyyz 04:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • see for legal advice

http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=&subId=&mId=795952&mbId=5&threadId=10025

I took only four images of children in public. A lawyer informed me that "Are you allowed to take pictures of people including children in plain view, anything visible from public area with out there permision and registering them as copyright and posting it on the Internet (wikipedia.org) and publising it?" This applies in the United States were those pictures were taken. The other pictures that I posted were taken of a different website and were released to the public domain. If you view the pictures you will see a link to a source. Another administrator from en.wikipedia.org informed me that I have the right to do that. He even check the license of that website. The other image I took was removed as a courtesy of the parent. Intently I was given permission to post it. Later they wanted me to take it down. Legally I did not have to take it down but I did so to do the parent a favor, because the parent was a friend of mine. According to the law in The United States a reporter does not per permission to take a picture of a person adult or child and post it in a newspaper or show on TV. I do not know how to write a proper license on how to release the image. Can moderator give me advise on how to change it. --Belginusanl 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we're not talking about newspapers, we're talking about selling a portrait of someone for money. This has to be allowed according to commons licencing guidelines. It's not allowed if the person didn't agree. -- Gorgo 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK there are a few separate issues here:
  • 1. Belginusanl's license as stated on his user page. It is not allowed to have a restriction like "Wikimedia only". If you don't remove this restriction, regardless of anything else, the images will have to be deleted. This is a copyright problem.
  • 2. Whether having so many photos of random children is a necessary or useful thing for Wikimedia. This is a community opinion and nothing to do with copyright, but it can still be a reason for deletion.
  • 3. Whether or not Belginusanl has the "right" to publish these images (personality rights, privacy rights). I think Gorgo is confused and these are not to do with copyright. We are not using them commercially. If someone else wants to, it is up to them to gain the necessary permission. It is a restriction, but not a copyright restriction, it's an "other law" restriction. That is my amatuer interpretation. Commons does not really have a clear policy about privacy/personality rights.

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have released all four images under the folowing license --Belginusanl 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.


June 10

Image:Rc Waterfall.jpg

Image source is just an image hosting site. There is no information about the author of the image or its licensing terms, and certainly no reason why {{NoRightsReserved}} is applicable. howcheng {chat} 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this contributor uses "images.google.com" as a source. Thuresson 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete if no copyrigth owner is given. --Tomia 12:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate shields

--SPUI 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Viceroyaltyperu.PNG

Image:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Image of copyrighted object (Pokemon toy) does not create new copyright for the photographer, fair use/copyvio --Denniss 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and you're not. Pikachu is copyrighted, no doubt about that. I have doubts about the consoles though: their design is too plain to be copyrighted. Look, it's simple: If you take a photograph of a modern art sculpture or a modern painting, you can't upload it here, right? Same for Pikachu. See below the discussion on Image:Bulbasaur toy.JPG --Fb78 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bulbasaur toy.JPG

Image of copyrighted object (Pokemon toy) does not create new copyright for the photographer --Denniss 12:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're saying that if I take a photograph of a kid who happens to be holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, Disney owns the coyright on the photo by extension since they own the Pooh design? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm about 99.999999% certain that's not correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably in this case it's OK if Winnie the Pooh is not the main object of this specific image. If such a copyrighted toy is the main object it has to be deleted. If you need this images (obviously as it's used in a template) please reupload it to en wiki as fair use. --Denniss 13:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that virtually every commercial product is covered by some sort of copyright: cars, chairs, toys, computers, electronics, spoons, nearly everything. To disallow images of products and designs would make illustrating articles such as iPod pretty much impossible, not to mention hundreds of automotive articles. In fact, pretty much the whole of Category:Technology would have to go. I don't think this is based on correct interpretation of copyright law, and I see it setting a rather dangerous precedent if it succeeds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that most cars use a pretty common design that is not copyrightable, because it lacks originality and creativity? And you do realize that there are things, like sculptures, paintings, action figures that are creative and therefore generally copyrighted? And that you can't just take a picture of any modern painting or sculpture and upload it here? Why do you people not get it that it's the same thing whether you take a picture of a sculpture or a picture of Darth Vader? Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you'll need the permission of the original creator. What's so difficult about believing that?
Why do you believe that the design of your alarm clock or your dinner plate is copyrighted in the same way Mickey Mouse is? And why do you believe that while you can't upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures?
Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix are subject to copyright and have to be treated as a work of art, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. They can be copyrighted, perhaps, if they were created by a designer, but the ones you use at home are probably not. Of course, you can put together four sticks and a board and call it a chair, or take a box, stick a controller to it and call it a video game, but no court in the world will accept that you now hold the copyright to it. Even in the US. And if you're one of those people who, like User:Angr, believe that even four letters and a red line can be copyrighted, it's one more reason to delete them all because then those pictures are not free.
If you want actual case studies here is one, here is another. I've come up with other ones before.
And no, it doesn't matter whether Mickey Mouse is printed on a T-shirt, which is worn by yourself, while you're walking in a public place, loudly reciting the GFDL. That doesn't at all give you the right to take a picture of the T-shirt, cut out Mickey Mouse and upload it as "free" material. Nothing you'll ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material. --Fb78 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a copyrighted image and a copyrighted character/object. If you make your own picture of an object, I'm pretty sure you can license it anyway you choose, as long as it is made clear that the characters are copyrighted by another source. For example, If I draw a picture of Pikachu, I can say "Picture copyright 2006 Ac1983fan inc. Characters and logos are copyright 2006, Nintendo of America."--Ac1983fan 20:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can do that, but the character is still copyrighted by nintendo and they will make you pay (and probably sue you) if you use these pictures for anything public even if you created them yourself. Why do you think companys pay a lot of money to use characters like that for advertising if it was so easy to just slap a copyright notice on it? -- Gorgo 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. You create a copyright for your own work, but the original copyright still exists. And you won't be able to use your own work (except under fair use) unless the original creator gave you permission. May I quote from en:Derivative work:
In the United States, "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 [48]:
A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version."
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. --Fb78 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look. IF what you guys are saying is true, then this and the two images metioned in the above discussion about pikachu should be deleted as well, since they are pictures of copyrighted objects.--Ac1983fan 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the Pikachu pictures, but I can't see what could be copyrightable about the NES controller. basically it's just five buttons on a black box. Not so creative, huh? But if you want to, list it for deletion. --Fb78 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, consider this a nomination for all those images. So, Delete this, Image:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG, Image:Small NES controller.png, Image:Nintendo_ds.jpg and Image:NGC_Gamecube.jpg--Ac1983fan 00:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Various_Star_Wars_pictures they should be kept

Oh, stop whining. Do you also think we should close down Commons, just because you can't upload pictures of R2D2? Well, I'd love to upload paintings by Robert Rauschenberg, but I don't, because I know it's illegal. Come on, there's plenty of other photo opportunities that don't violate third party copyrights. One of our central guidelines on Commons is that you can use every picture commercially. George Lucas just won't like it if you print a Commons picture of Darth Vader on a billboard and not ask him for permission, and he has the law on his side. Upload your Star Wars pictures on a fair use Wikipedia, but not here. This project is not going to die because we don't have pictures of Pokemon and Asterix. Some more reading: [49] [50] --Fb78 10:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep its used in almost every single Pokémon article's talk page, and other pages as well. I Love Minun (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually we don't vote here, if ten people think it should be kept, but one person finds a legal restriction it has to be deleted. Of course it's a pity that this picture is used in a lot of articles but that doesn't change a thing. You can upload it with the same name to the english wikipedia under fair use of course -- Gorgo 13:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's used in no articles because these pics are only used on talk pages of articles.--207.5.141.142 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete And please keep apart works of art (the pokemon) and objects of daily use (gaming consoles), the latter of which generally are not works in the sense of copyright, or, depending on iurisdication, do not show enough originality for the vastly increased prerequisites for copyright protection of such objects. They are generally protected by design patents, which may or may not (depending on iurisdiction again) hinder commercial use of pictures for anything but quotation-like contexts, but that's not our problem, since it's entirely independent of copyright and thus not something that we should care about. --Rtc 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the gamecube is copyrighted, it even syas right on it "(C) 2001 Nintendo". So, if the pics I listed can stay, so can this one.--Ac1983fan 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what it says on it. People can't escape rules for originality simply by butting a (c) sticker on the object. --Rtc 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so let me get this straight. Nintendo can copyright the pokemon but not the consoles?--169.244.71.253 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civil persons or corporations cannot copyright *anything*. Only copyright itself can. And (I can only say so for German law), since the design of the console is secondary (its the purpose is to run games, not to look nice) and the design of the pokemon is primary (its design is primary and only purpose), the originality necessary for protection of the former (as a work of applied arts) is higher than for the latter (as a work of fine arts). While these figurines are usually copyrighted, you can't make a general statement about consoles, it depends on the actual case. --Rtc 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another link for German speakers: http://www.lawsolution.de/index.php?p=faqitem&id=8#faq168 --217.224.161.67 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Highly unlikely that this can really be PD, same goes for the pikachu one. Kotepho 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The best that could be expected is fair use of a poor quality image.Thats not sufficient for commons. In this case not just nintendo but also the manufacturer of the toy would hold rights to the toy and its public use. Gnangarra 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper money, again

For the umpteenth time, photos from the Ron Wise World Paper Money website. According to Ron Wise: "I do not give permission for any donated images to be used. The copyright of a donated image remains with the original owner of the image and their permission must be obtained before the image can be used. I do not give permission for any of the images to be sold, for profit or otherwise.". There is a permission at es:Wikipedia:Autorización para insertar material de Ron Wise which allows use in Wikipedia, but WikiCommons is not Wikipedia etc etc. Thuresson 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20milpesos.jpg

According to [51] this image was donated by Steve Burke.

Image:250milkuponi.jpg

According to [52] this image was donated by Frank van Tiel.

Image:100Lari.jpg

According to [53] this image was donated by Thomas Augustsson

Image:50Lari.jpg

According to [54] this image was donated by Omer Yalcinkaya

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:BahnBrühl1844.jpg

This picture is available bigger and in colour: Image:Bonn-Cölner-Eisenbahn 1844.jpg. Not used. -Samulili 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Københavns Hovedbanegård 25-07-04.jpg

Uploaded with wrong name, redundant of Image:København Hovedbanegård 25-07-04.jpg. Captain Scarlet 16:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Fb78

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kombucha.JPG

Reuploaded this image in order to change name, so as not to confuse it with Image:Kombucha.jpg. Romarin 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you post this here? There are tags for speedy deletion. No need for a discussion, stuff like that only makes this page longer. --Fb78 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fijne waterranonkel (Ranunculus aquatilis).jpg

MIsidentified. New upload: Image:Blaartrekkende boterbloem plant (Ranunculus sceleratus).jpg .Rasbak 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, replaced with Image:Blaartrekkende boterbloem plant (Ranunculus sceleratus).jpg. Thuresson 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EAA.gif

Official logo of an European Athletics Organization. Didn't mark it as {{logo}} only because the uploader did not specify any license, so there is a sliiight chance that the logo itself is in PD even if the site is copyrighted (yes, I am a mathematician). --romanm (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PanzerInfantryAdvance.jpg

A photo from German magazine Signal, September 1941. That wasn't 70 years ago but perhaps this can be saved anyway? Thuresson 23:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, no. According to the image description page, the Photographer was one Emil Grimm, wartime photographer (nowadays we use the euphemism of "embedded reporter/journalist"). Even if he died just after taking that picture, it would be copyrighted in Germany until 2011... according to the source, the photographer was Arthur Grimm, another German war reporter, and it was published in Signal #22 in 1942. More info about these WWII German war journalists, see here. The Signal issues seem to be rather valuable collectioners' items today. Delete Lupo 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

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.

Category:Trams in Nantes

Not sure if categories have their place here, but couldn't find Categories for deletion so here it is. By all means move to category deletion list if there is one.

Is redundant of new category Category:Tramway de Nantes created to replace this one, using the names of the articles on EN and FR. Captain Scarlet 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (In such cases putting a {{Speedydelete}} on the page would be sufficient.) --ALE! 21:11, 11 June 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:Cumulative number of HIV AIDS cases in Taiwan.svg

REASON: Wrong name. It is trend. not cumulative number. (I am the uploader.) --AirBa 09:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There is no need to request a deletion like this here. --Kjetil_r 14:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WC 2006 - Germany v Costa Rica - teams.jpg

See FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 matches: "Hinweis: Die Veröffentlichung von Bildern von WM-Spielen (Spielszenen, Stadion etc.) zu kommerziellen Zwecken etc. sind von der FIFA verboten! Daher müssen solche Bilder umgehend gelöscht werden. Ausgenommen davon sind akkreditierte Fotografen. [55]" --Stefan ■ 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing the above text says images from inside the stadiums are copy vio's or some such as decided by fifa. Given the entire yellow boxed warning at FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 matches is in German on the page but not in English how are non German speaking uploaders supposed to know any different? Adding the warning in English would help - otherwise more images are likely to be uploaded by others who don't know what the yellow box says. SFC9394 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the box in English and hope it's understandable. --Stefan ■ 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine, thanks. It is a bit annoying that fifa have made that decision, as the commons is going to miss out on some good pictures! SFC9394 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the base for that restriction is. It surely is no legal restriction, probably only an agreemend you agreed to by buying the ticket. What are our rules for similar stuff like the Olympics, etc. ? -- Gorgo 17:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would speculate that it is to protect the revenue streams of their accredited photographers (who I imagine pay to get that accreditation, i.e. the process is a revenue stream for fifa). If anyone in the crowd could take photos and use them commercially then with the quality (and frequency) of cameras today sports publications could just use free photos, (garnered from somewhere like here) rather than paying royalties to official photographers. I guess it is in much the same way that photographs are banned from being taken at other types of "performances". I would agree with some of the other points being made here that it is the photographer who has breached their rules by uploading under CC, and nothing to do with us. However, ignorance of what CC actually means is rife on flickr (I have seen plenty of clearly copyrighted things posted on flickr as CC material). SFC9394 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Legal base for their claims is the Hausrecht which naturally only affects people actually entering the stadium. Legal base for performances is Leistungsschutz (I don't know the US parallel), often copyright of the performed play etc. That's entirely different. A soccer game is not a performance. --Rtc 20:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is no copyright violation. The photographer has broken the FIFA rules and might be held responsible for anybody using this picture commercially, but that's solely his problem, neither Commons' nor the problem of those using the picture. --Rtc 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the Photographer be responsible if someone uses his picture for commercial uses? AFAIK weapon manufactures are not liable for killings with their products. Correct me if I'm wrong. --213.254.52.171 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he permitted it in violation to an (unilateral?) contract witht he FIFA! 1) Nobody except the photographer can be responsible since there is no legal basis for such a responsibility. 2) The photographer is responsible based on civil law: A condition for entering the stadium is not to use his pictures commercially (and not to grant a license for such use). If the photographer violates this condition, he is legally responsible for the effects of this violation (he broke the (unilateral?) contract which permitted him entering the stadium in the first place) – which includes responsibility for other people using this photo commercially, since they can only do so legally because of his permission! 3) Killing concerns criminal law. You can't compare that. IANAL --Rtc 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no licence for an exclusive (or noncommercial) use on Wikipedia? I'm not familiar with this stuff. Anyway, what about that? --213.254.52.171 20:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Commons is accepting only free licenses, which means the picture may be arbitrarily commercially exploited and modified, and used in any medium by anyone! Digital publication is not enough. 2) accordingly, "only for wikipedia" is not enough. Noncommercial is not enough either. Wikipedia actively exploited commercially (some wikipedias permit some nonconflicting fair use pictures, but that's entirely unrelated to the problem discussed here) --Rtc 20:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the quarrels I sometimes have when I bring my camera to football matches (see my gallery). Some stupid security guard will say that photographing is not allowed inside the stadium, and I always reply that I did not agree to such an “agreement” when I bought the ticket. In Norway, restrictions like the FIFA rules can not be applied. Are there similar rules in Germany? Kjetil_r 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep There is no violation of intellectual property --Historiograf 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have taken photos at a tennis tournament where they say the same thing, and others have similar cases too. All modern venues have that restriction. It's about the terms of the ticket, not the copyright. The photographer might have broken the terms and conditions of entry (in which case, the venue is free to throw them out), but NOT copyright. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No Panoramafreiheit in this case (inside of private area). Shaqspeare 19:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Panoramafreiheit is not relevant here, which it only becomes as soon as copyrighted works are on the picture. Commonly, this refers to architecture, such as the stadium. But the stadium architecture is not visible on the picture! --Rtc 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per pfctdayelise Jaranda wat's sup 03:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep no copyright violation, no artwork, architecture or something else. --Raymond de 05:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep copyright has obviously nothing to do with that; the only problem is the author's violation of a completely different contract; and that is IMHO none of Commons' business, it's the photographer's problem. --Mormegil 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since this all seems to be leaning to a keep, your comments raise an interesting situation - what happens with other flickr'ed CC photos? Should more just be uploaded on the basis that it is fine (which I agree legally it is, for us) - but that may have the knock on effect of possibly getting the photographer into trouble. Should we have a moral compass on this one, or just say "they uploaded them to flickr originally, so any ramifications of that is their problem"? I ask this before I bother uploading anymore! SFC9394 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flickr people generally don't care a lot about copyright. They might take a screenshot and just call it "CC-BY" like all their other photos. Of course we know that's not true. So when transferring images you do have to be a bit smart and evaluate yourself if they are right. We can't just blindly say, "They said it was CC-BY so if it's wrong, it's their fault, not ours" and claim no responsibility. If they break copyright law, we can't take their photos. If they break other laws to take photos (like this, or say, trespass), IMO we can use the photos, the legal problem is the photographers'. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah I was specifically relating to this case (as working on the flickrlickr project I have to bin many that are clearly copyright), if, for example, someone was uploading loads of World Cup photo's onto flickr and we were copying them here, then I didn't know whether it would be something we should let the flicker user know that they were breaching fifa conditions - or just let them continue to upload so we can harvest them for here. It is a difficult one, but probably depends on how much fifa care about the whole situation, i.e. will they even bother at all, give the photographer a slap on the wrists, or slap them with a court writ for breaching their terms. SFC9394 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I even understood from someone on Flickr talking with Eloquence that it is not even possible on Flickr to license part of your photographs and not others. If so those errors are not really the uploader's fault, but at least part Flickr's. - Andre Engels 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep copyright law is not relevant here. Maybe the author will become some trouble with the FIFA but that's not the problem of wikimedia commons.--Wiggum 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have pointed out, restrictions on photography cannot generally be enforced via copyright laws. It may have been illegal to take the photograph, but once it's taken, that doesn't itself make it illegal to republish it. --Delirium 20:43, 15 June 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:Emil Nolde - Tanz um das goldene Kalb - 1910.jpg

Nolde died 1956 so there are still missing some years until this painting will be in public domain. --Matt314 12:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image was painted in 1910. While I do not know the exact publishing date, I believe it would be before 1923, and hence the image is PD. Avoid Copyright Paranoia-- Chris 73 13:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in the United States before 1923, then it would be out of copyright in the United States in that particular form (or in further transformed derivatives from its particular pre-1923 published form). [Note: I am not a lawyer, and this is an over-simplified summary of a complex situation.] I don't think that a recent color photograph of the painting as it hangs on a museum wall would really qualify under the pre-1923 U.S. exemption. AnonMoos 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL either, but if the original is out of copyright, then a photograph (2D reproduction) should also be out of copyright (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). Most scans of images we have here on the commons were made pretty recently, after all. -- Chris 73 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. de:Emil Nolde was a German painter who died in 1956, therefore his paintings will be PD in 2026. No arguing about that. --Fb78 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

According to the UK Office of Public Sector Information (here, point 11), this image may not be used except in limited circumstances. The copyright page of this image on Wikipedia also states that this is not a free-use image and has extensive fair use rationale as well. Furthermore, the standard-issue Crown Copyright on government pages (here, for example) always says "other than the Royal Arms" when discussing reproduction rights. Unless I'm missing a point somewhere, this is not a free-use image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. I understood that this image is an own-creation of a Wikimedia - it was uploaded as PD in 2003, but then was changed to FairUse without any discussion last year. Certainly, it doesn't look like any of the official renderings I've seen. In that case, it would be whatever licence it was uploaded under.
Renderings of Coats of Arms are subject to copyright, but the design itself (the blazon) is exempt. UK law always treats the items differently, hence th e waivers on, because to use Arms in some contexts (commercial, representational, etc.) is illegal - but not (necessarily) a copyright violation.
James F. (talk) 08:41, 17 June 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.

Do briefs stink??? and Do Briefs Stink??

I don't think we really need these two .... not of any use anywhere .--Denniss 16:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 17:49, 11 June 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:Rmlogo.jpg

deleted --ALE! 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:127k.jpg

REASON -- suspect GFDL licence. The photo itself is a very poor scan (I can scan it better from a number of copyrighted books..) --Pibwl 18:20, 11 June 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:ORP Garland.JPG

100% copyright violation of a painting author (I suspect, Adam Werka, but letters are to small). It is not a photograph. Pibwl 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Pibwl 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Werka or Stanisław Kierzkowski. Clearly copyvio, deleted. Shaqspeare 19:21, 12 June 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:Passenger terminal.jpg

REASON --I've made a mistake and uploaded tha same picture twice. --Gardomir 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Kjetil_r 21:22, 11 June 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:Cassano di Altamura.JPG

REASON --Deletion requested by the Author, via mail. --M7 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no license since 29 May. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarmenElectra.jpg

Tagged as cc-by, but the author is “Getty Images for Gibson Lounge”. CC license is unlikely, and a quick look at the other images by the user at flickr ([56]) reveals that he uploads pretty much everything tagging it as cc-by. Kjetil_r 22:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from the uploader): That's true. I just checked out the flickr profile and there's anything from promotional photos to screenshots tagged as cc-by. I tried to contact the user about this issue, but if we can't prove the picture authorship, the picture should be promptly removed. I'm sorry for the incovenience. --Abu badali 02:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just checked. It's image #52057143 from getty. Copyvio from http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52057143 . I am sorry for that. Will double-check my sources next time. Thanks to Kjetil_r for pointing out. --Abu badali 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Fb78 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tropical storm carlos (1997).JPG and Image:Hurricane enrique (1997).JPG

Both were replaced by cropped versions with the same name except for having the file extension in lowercase. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Image:Leecry.jpg

The assertion that all works of the Government of Singapore are PD is incorrect. See [57] William Avery 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinswee.jpg

The assertion that all works of the Government of Singapore are PD is incorrect. See [58] William Avery 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:070216.jpg and Image:朝 人 的引水渠.jpg

Bad name. --Dreamrail Arrus 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Could you please specify correct file name? Please use {{Duplicate}} for such requests if future. --EugeneZelenko 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vanuatu flag large.png

It is redundant and no longer used by any project. --Ultratomio 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SDKU bilboard.jpg

See Commons_talk:Licensing#Have_I_stumbled_upon_freedom_of_panorama_in_Slovak_law? ~~helix84 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pokébola.png

I think (but am not 100% sure) that the pokeball on itself is also a trademark. IIVQ 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ian012.jpeg

I guess it's copyvio, because it look's like an official photograph of Ian Somerhalder and it's size is typical small for images on websites. --Lyzzy 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go and ask the author: en:User:Jayc2262, see [59]. I have only copied it identically from english Wikipedia. --Highpriority 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been tagged as {{Nsd}}, as the uploader at en.wp does not specify a source. User:Highpriority, you should not move images like this one to Commons until you have asked the original uploader. You can not assume that the uploader at en.wp is the author, especially not when you move images from the wikipedia with a notoriously high rate of copyvios. Kjetil_r 07:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

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:South korea coa.png

This has been tagged unknown since 3 March 2006 with the uploader notified. It is used at so many Wiki sites. I am unsure whether this is exempt from copyright protection pursuant to South Korean Copyright Act.--Jusjih 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The May 24 version is licensed from Vector-Images.com, but two users do not accept that version. Thuresson 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Vector-Images.com version could be used with template {{Vector-images}}. Why do we not delete the other versions without clear licenses? --ALE! 13:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Essjay, however I do not understand, why the Vector-Images.com version was not kept. --ALE! 09:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, May 24 version kept. Thuresson 02:19, 17 June 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:Equatorial guinea flag large.png

It is redundant and no longer used by any project. --Ultratomio 08:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Tankini.jpg

Valid license unverifiable --Pjacobi 08:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Flickr account holder seems rather upset [60] and has all her content marked private now. She now requires per-use permission. And it is unclear, whether the originally given license by her was valid, as she wasn't the photographer. --Pjacobi 08:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... well we have {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, but I am not totally convinced it is a great solution anyway. She can't legally revoke a license, and you can't require notification with any CC license anyway! But we could be nice and respect her request anyway. I can't find any other free decent images of a tankini so far... pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, the author posted her pictures in Flickr, she was not aware what CC license is. It is also possible that she did not know that it is a searchable database. Later, she was shocked that people are freely using it. Legally speaking, she has no way to revoke her license. But, I think ethically, that it would be nice if we respect her feelings, and delete the picture - even if we could not find an alternative picture. And Wikimedia Commons is a public base, and my opinion does not matter alone, I submit this to cosideration by others. - User:Sechzen
  • Delete. I cannot see a model release ("Recht am eigenen Bild") too. And yes, we have a lot of other images without model release. --Raymond de 05:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as far as I understand the situation, the Flickr account holder is the model. So, the "license" originally given (and now repented) is the model's statement, not the photographer's. So it may never have been valid. --Pjacobi 07:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems in poor taste to keep it if it wasn't really intended to be public, and not such a one-of-a-kind irreplaceable image to be worth fighting over. --Delirium 11:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed the disapperance on Flickr, but also noticed at that time, that she excatly knew, whats the licensing means. She has also managed to shut down account of 4 peoples at that, who have used pictures without metting the licensing conditions. Would like to suggest, that someone of the pro-deleters asks her at advance on [Flickr (free registration required)] -- Test-tools 08:04, 16 June 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:HindenburgSenorAnderson.jpg

Part of the Bettmann Archive (http://pro.corbis.com/popup/Enlargement.aspx?mediauids={0e2a4adf-60e2-4041-9a99- ). However, it could be, that the image is in the public domain by now. Has anyone some specific information? --ALE! 08:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That URL doesn't work. I have not succeeded in constructing a direct URL to any of their images. To see them, go to http://pro.corbis.com/ and search for "hindenburg". They have three similar images:
  • BE082014: only copyright statement reads "Bettman/CORBIS",
  • BE043569: copyright statement reads Baldwin H. Ward & Kathryn C. Ward/CORBIS
  • HU002444: copyright statement reads Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS
The first or second one would be our (and the Allstar project's and the Centennial of Flight's) image. The photographer apparently was Sam Shere. There's another version of completely unknown provenance; it was shot from a different perspective than any of the Corbis images. Note that we do have a PD image of the incident. Other possible replacements might be the photograph by Arthur Cofod Jr.; USAF 12293 AC, or to ask the Navy Lakehurst Historical Society about their images; one of their images is credited here as an "official Navy photograph". (Corbis has a similar but not quite identical image under ID PG12082.) Lupo 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a brief bio blurb on Sam Shere (1901 - 1985). Note that Shere was only one of about 14 photographers (another source claims 22) present at the incident on May 6, 1937. Lupo 10:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer Sam Shere died in 1985 (http://photography.about.com/b/a/182694.htm ). Therefore the issue seems clear to me. delete --ALE! 10:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Essjay --ALE! 09:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Widelands-12-06-2006-screenshot.jpg

Near duplicate of Image:Widelands-12-06.2006.jpg. Also, I would like some help with putting in the right information to the latter image: The game has GPLed license, can the screenshot have a GFDL license? Who should be attributed for creating the image files? Date? -Samulili 13:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For screenshots of freely licensed software, put {{free screenshot|license=GPL}} {{GPL}} (or LGPL, or whatever). Never put GFDL (or any other specific license) unless the copyright holder says so! I guess put the date the screenshot was made. It's important to link to somewhere on a website that says what license the software is under. Attribute to the game creators, and if you want, say "screenshot by X". pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bild2 EMF.jpg, Image:Bild2 Big Band.jpg, Image:Bild2 Blasorchester.jpg, Image:Bild2 Juniorzug.jpg, Image:Bild1 2.Zug.jpg, Image:Bild1 1.Zug.jpg

a) May be copyright violations. They are uploaded as own work but some have "Spielmannszug & Jugendblasorchester Rödemis e.V." as the author (more likely as the copyright owner). They all come from http://www.roedemis.de/
b) They are, in my opinion, too small to be useful. If the person who uploaded these small pictures were able to upload bigger versions, both a) and b) would no more be a problem, I think. Samulili 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Taube.gif

See previous four source and so. But is this a {{Logo}}? Samulili 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sudeten.gif

was deleted in de because it lacks a reason why it is GFDL [61] --Matt314 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Explosion_of_HMS_Hood.jpg

REASON : There is a cleaned version of this picture and that was uploaded earlier : Image:British_Battlecruiser_HMS_Hood_explosion.jpg -- Sting 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smoke_from_Prince_of_Wales_and_Hood.jpg

REASON : There is a cleaned version of this picture and that was uploaded earlier : Image:British_Battlecruiser_HMS_Hood_sinking.jpg -- Sting 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Askeladden.jpg

Werenskiold died in 1938 (not in 1936 as stated in the description), his drawings are not in the public domain yet. -- Kjetil_r 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Persistence of Memory.jpg

Dalí died in 1989, his works are not in the public domain -- Kjetil_r 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sarajevo Attentat.jpg

The image description does not say who painted this image, therefore I don't see any reason for PD. --Tolanor 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, no source info was given in the deleted image on German wikipedia. --::Slomox:: >< 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

Image:George W. Bush reading the pet goat.jpg

REASON There is no source given for the image. The image has a description saying it is a modified (contrast, brightness) version of another image. The image it references (Image:01-Bush.png) has never existed on the Commons. It does exist on en.wp, though: en:Image:01-Bush.png. But it's tagged as a fair use screenshot there. It was never tagged as {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} as this image is here. Based on this, and with no public domain source cited to the contrary, I believe this image is not in the public domain. Johntex 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kamanda wiki.png

No source, likely copyvio see the image talk page. Delete Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astigmatism 2 eyes illus.png

This image is not an accurate representation of astigmatism. It was removed from the Wikipedia article (English version) for this reason. See the discussion at Talk:Astigmatism#Image --Srleffler 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ulla_Schmidt.jpg

The photo also shows the logo of the ministry. The ministry advices everyone to get an authorisation before showing the ministry's logo. They are about to start a lawsuit against "Grüne Jugend" after "Grüne Jugend" showed their logo without authorisation: http://www.gruene-jugend.de/ulla-schmidt. But if you need a authorisation before you can show the photo, this doesn't compare with GNU-FDL. --81.173.238.229 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Logo-Paranoia. It has been said often and often but admins do not understand that GNU FDL is concerned only with the copyright. Es wäre das beste, diesen Schmalspur-Admins das Handwerk zu legen, wenn sie einfache Sachverhalte nicht kapieren. --Historiograf 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you change language, when making aggressive comments? I think the solution found here is very reasonable. So an objective comment would have been sufficient too. --::Slomox:: >< 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg

Tagged with {{Logo}}, but AFAIK that's classical "freedom of panorama/public space" case.

Image:Class487.jpg

"All rights reserved" is not the same as GFDL. Photographer's page at http://www.railwaymedia.fotopic.net/ doesn't mention GFDL, but merely says "Most of these images are available for use." --bjh21 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Naval Ensign of Australia.svg

See en:Image:Royal-Australian-Navy-Ensign.svg, an identical image has been marked there as Crown Copyright protected and fair-use only (the page is an orphan now, all uses have been changed to the Commons' version). Is the flag really free, or should it be deleted? Any lawyer? (Note I do not really think this image should be deleted, but I am not a lawyer.) --Mormegil 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I *very* much doubt that flags can be claimed to be fair-use in any sense of the world. Else, we'll have to delete *all* the state flags, since those should technically only be used by government institutions -- all that can't mean that we aren't allowed to depict them to represent the state or its instutitions. I say keep. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - we care for copyright only, and there is no copyright concern over this file. Any other restrictions (trademarks, legal restictions for ensigns or Coat of Arms and the like) depend on the actual use, and are of no concern for us here. --h-stt !? 07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to the page there are copyright concerns here, as the page asserts the image is Crown Copyright protected. (I repeat I do not believe that, too, but, you know, IANAL, I just wanted to clear this out.) --Mormegil 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this flag design is older than 1956 (1904 by the australien parliament, confirmed by Queen Elisabeth II in 1954), Crown Copyright has expired by now. I'm not even convinced, that the flag has even been protected by Crown Copyright, but if so, by now it has expired. --h-stt !? 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kurpiowszczanka-Woman in Kurp dress.jpg

This is photo from my family album. My grandma told me she wears Kurp dress, so I put it in article about pl:Wikipedia:Kurpie. I looked at other Kurp folk clothes in Internet and realised that my gradma wears very simple dress which is not very characteristic to Kurp culture... So the reason for deletion is:

  • very little possible encyclopedic/ilustration uses,
  • poor quality of the photo.

A.J. 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't aggre with that. It's rare. Photo is 55 years old, but... try to find Kurp's dress photo distributed on free licence (afterall quality is 'accepted' for me). Image is useful, should't we ilustrate cultures' elements of tradidion? Grzegorz Dąbrowski 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
    • I'll try to get experts opinion from Kurp Association. If that is really Kurp dress, even common clothes, not holiday ones, I'll be happy to change my opinion. A.J. 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • Commons is not for encyclopedic uses.
    • Quality is not so bad. You haven't seen really bad old photos. This is -well- only old.
Platonides 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gpie2.jpg

The source page[62] for this image says

Here is a picture of the interior of a Georgie Pie restaurant that I swiped from someone's website a couple of years ago. Should give that guy his props, but I can't find the page anymore.

I don't think that's evidence of the picture's being licensed under the GNU GPL, or at all. --bjh21 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

Image:NY license plate 2005.jpg

REASON No source --Nv8200p 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:nsd}} Platonides 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion for the source information of this user's license plate photos: [63] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stop.png

Image:Stop.png is REDUNDANT. Please delete it A.S.A.P. Two vector editions of this sign have been made. --72.60.180.104 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geneva typeface sample.png

Superseded by Image:Geneva font.svg and by Image:Geneva sample.svg. According to checkusage, this isn't used anywhere. --bdesham 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cellar door.ogg

I uploaded the wrong copy, readded as Image:En-us-cellar door.ogg which is better. - TheDaveRoss 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MILO.jpg

depicts a irrelevant music group, the corresponding article was deleted today by me ([64]). --Uwe Gille 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soccer-04.jpg

Delete, no source information, probably copyvio. Longbow4u 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:nld}}, please don't list here Sanbec ✉ 08:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg

Lizenz stimmt nicht, auch in der SU gilt Urheberrecht Marcela 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The licence is disputed, but still accepted. Was first published in USSR previous to 1973. Shaqspeare 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline case. The image may or may not copyrighted. Photographer Yevgeny Khaldei died only in 1997. If he was the coypright holder, the image is today copyrighted (even in Russia) until 70 years p.m.a., and we'd have to delete it. However, Khaldei worked for TASS, the state news agency. If TASS as a legal entity was the copyright holder, the image was under a perpetual copyright according to the old Soviet copyright law; that perpetual term was reduced in 1993 retroactively to "50 years since publication". That reduced term expired in 1995, and the image was thus not subject to the term extension to 70 years since publication of July 28, 2004. Thus, I think that if TASS was the copyright holder, the image indeed would be in the public domain in Russia since 1995; and by virtue of the TRIPS regulations also PD in the U.S. because it (just barely) wasn't copyrighted anymore on January 1, 1996 and thus its copyright in the U.S. was not restored. I have no idea what the copyright status of that image in the EU might be. Please note that I have no idea whether TASS indeed was the copyright holder. Furthermore, note that one can find the image credited to Getty Images BBC.UK. The BBC credits a similar image (probably also by a Russian photographer) to AP [65]. Corbis also has the image as YK004440 and YK001354 (search for "reichstag flag"), with the mention "© Yevgeny Khaldei/CORBIS". RIA Novosti, the former "Sovinformburo", also claims copyright [66][67] over a version of it (Khaldei took several shots, and the image exists in several modified versions). In summary: if Khaldei was the copyright holder, the image is copyrighted for sure; if he wasn't, the coypright status is uncertain. Rights are managed by AP, CORBIS and other professional photography providers, and a Russian news agency also claims copyright. Hence delete. Lupo 09:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It was published in the Soviet Union before 1973 so it is in public domain. Period. Also, what about Image:Reichstag flag.jpg, should we delete it too, a featured picture on en wiki? DDima 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DDima. It was definitely published in the USSR prior to 1973. Besides, the USSR must have thrown this and similar images after anyone that asked for them to glorify itself. Valentinian (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Jon Harald Søby 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lupo's arguments are convincing. He has shown several times that our pre-1973 myth is wishful thinking sine fundamento in re --Historiograf 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schwarze auge 1 logo.svg

A IP at the german description page of this image: Would you please delete this file? It's copyrighted by Fanpro, a german Pen&Paper company, and they are very rude when finding something like this. This could become very expensive... :-( --80.171.178.218 19:39, 14. Jun 2006 (CEST)

You can see the logo at this book. --ElRaki 01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I may have been too much optimistic. I made this image myself, but as it is a copy, I am not the copyright owner, so the license should be fair use which is not the policy of Commons.
OK for deletion.
(However, I'm not afraid of the cost as it is fair use.)
Cdang 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Images uploaded by User:Neto0

The user Neto0 has been uploading images - all related with "Botafogo Futebol Clube" of Paraiba, a Brazilian soccer club - that he claims PD-self on it. In none of these images he provides any substantial information but the tag of PD-self itself. Some images were found in http://www.botafogopb.net/estadio.htm, where they are copyrighted. Others are logos of organized torcidas and photos os the team or the "torcida", and probably are not his work. He has also been uploading images at the Portuguese Wikipedia without providing the necessary information, and vandalizing articles about other soccer clubs in his State. I would vote to delete the images. Leslie 06:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus minor

Please remove the 4 redundant images of Image:Ulmus_minor_bluete1.jpeg, Image:Ulmus_minor_bluete2.jpeg, Image:Ulmus_minor_knospen.jpeg, Image:Ulmus_minor_rinde.jpeg. They have been uploaded under correct name of Acer saccharinum. Fabelfroh 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{badname|image:"correctname"}} tag for that purpose. Sanbec ✉ 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baumgartner-Gabitzer.jpg

The press photos available at VEÖ are made available for press purposes, not unlimited use by anybody for any purpose. Thuresson 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I safe the image from deletion? Thx
Please show that the photographer or copyright owner allows anybody to use the photo for any purpose. Thuresson 01:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Erwin-Schrodinger.jpg

duplicate of Image:Erwin_Schrödinger.jpg JdH 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please only use the {{duplicate|image:"correctname"}} tag for this purpose, no need to add the request here if already tagged with this tag. --Denniss 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will be handled elsewhere --ALE! 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestine_occupationN.jpg" by User:Just1pin

User:Just1pin has uploded 100 photos of Israel, the West bank, and related objects and people, all named "Palestine_occupationN.jpg" where N is a number in the range 1-100. The names doe's not describe the content of the photo and are clearly NPOV. They should be renamed. Hashekemist 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates in Category:2003 UB313

There are a number of duplicates in Category:2003 UB313, namely: Image:2003 UB313 artist's impression.jpg (same as Image:2003 UB313 NASA illustration.jpg); Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum pt.PNG and Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum pt.PNG (same as Image:2003 UB313 near-infrared spectrum pt.JPG and Image:2003 UB313 opname.jpg (same as Image:2003 UB313 photos.jpg). --Vesta 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Jenna Bush Hook em.jpg

I uploaded this picture. Later, I found we already have the identical picture at Image:Jenna, Barbara, George W, Laura Bush Jan 19, 2005.jpg. Please delete the one I uploaded. Thanks, Johntex 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

Templates

These three templates were created by User:Mariah-Yulia. The first tag is used as a copyright tag in two images (1 and 2) where the copyright owner clearly has conditions on the use of the images not in line with Commons:Licensing, namely that the images can only be used in article of a certain quality. The template should be deleted since it is too vague to be practical and the uploader should be asked to relicense the two photos.

The second and third templates includes the sentence "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for Wikipedia purpose". Whatever "Wikipedia purpose" is, it is probably not in line with Commons:Licensing (free use by anybody for any purpose). Not used anywhere. Thuresson 01:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Jon Harald Søby 10:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Grillo 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20060518222304.jpg

This is clearly a screenshot of (I presume Russian TV's Channel 1) broadcast of Eurovision Song Contest, which is copyrighted material. This is fair use by all means but inappropriate for Commons. --Dzordzm 03:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --moyogo 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vanilla sugar.jpg

I think this picture is copyrighted. this website uses the same picture. Koos ... 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Archaeoceratops colorsketch.jpg

It looks very obvious to me why this should be deleted. Tbc 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and by extension the other "images" by User:Dropzink. Tbc 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Centropyge loriluca.jpg

syntax error in name, new version Image:Centropyge loricula.jpg uploaded --Normann Z 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use {{Badname}}. TZM de:T/T C 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted after CheckUsage. Thuresson 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cc-by.svg, Image:Cc-nc.svg, Image:Cc-nd.svg, Image:Cc-sa.svg, Image:Cc-by white.svg, Image:Cc-nc white.svg, Image:Cc-nd white.svg, Image:Cc-sa white.svg and the PNG versions of these

They are copyrighted by Creative Commons. [68] states that "The Creative Commons buttons that describe a key term of our license, such as BY, NC, ND, SA, Sampling, Sampling Plus and Noncommercial Sampling Plus may only be used in the context of pointing to a Creative Commons license on the Creative Commons server that includes that license term or to otherwise describe the Creative Commons license, that includes that license term and that applies to a particular work." (this quote is licensed under cc-by-2.5) and clicking on the image takes us to the image description pages. We could use the colored ones from now. TZM de:T/T C 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete, since it would seem they are not "free use" images. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: see old discussion that touches on this subject [69]. The image isn't free, that's correct, but maybe we should be flexible here or ask Creative Commons for an exception to their rule. In my opinion it would be better to use the "original" icons for clarity reasons. NielsF 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sankei-Osaka.jpg

I uploaded the better one, Image:Namba-Sankei-Bldg-01.jpg. --J o 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DS Lite.PNG

Uploader describes image as a modification of an image uploaded by Mushroom which originated at DS Fanboy. Upon investigation, it appears that the image uploaded by Mushroom was copyrighted. --72.197.0.231 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:17th century shoes mules.jpg

Please delete this image - I applied the wrong century to it (jumping around too much). The image has correctly been uploaded as Image:18th century shoes mules.jpg. - PKM 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please tag wrongly named images with {{Badname}} in the future, mentioning the request here is unnecessary. This page is "reserved" for more complicated requests. NielsF 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=2184426"