Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
I kind of fail to understand how this fits our Scope, it is more something like a article for Wikipedia or Wikisource than it is a gallery. Commons host galleries full of content, no articles. --Huib talk 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep It is not an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
CommentUser:Abigor/temp is a plain copy&paste of the alleged out of scope gallery. Note that User:Abigor signs as "--Huib talk" Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Comment - I had it moved to the /temp to show it to a non admin while it was delete, I have blanked the page. Huib talk 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now that User:Herbythyme had deleted it, difficult to understand why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the poster is so to say "famous" at least in germany, a gallery of RAF wanted posters is in scope imo. Collecting all the cropped small files is a good idea and it is something a gallery or a category can do. Besides I have some doubt regarding the copyright, it is not in line with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hundertwasserentscheidung.jpg where we talked about files that are not official works extracted from an official work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right about the cropped images, and if they are deleted, the page will not have much use. But, that would be a reason to delete those cropped images, not a reason to speedily delete the gallery while keeping the cropped images. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How long should I wait before I may edit the page? And, if I may edit, what is wrong? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If the file is kept and the discussion is closed, then please remove the deletion marker, too.
The photos on this poster aren't German amtliche Werke, but works by others, which were used by the German police. (see § 24 KUG Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.) The photos are still copyrighted by their authors. sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Fahndungsplakat2.jpg
- File:Fahndungsplakat.jpg
- File:Rafplakat.JPG
- File:Fahndungsplakat3.jpg
- File:Ulrike Meinhof 2.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader 2.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin 2.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins 2.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe 2.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak 2.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke 2.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin 2.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun 2.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders 2.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz 2.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller 2.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt 2.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath 2.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt 2.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser 2.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner 2.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann 2.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter 2.jpg
--sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafplakat.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. Derivatives of official works are allowed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a real official work. According to $ 24 KUG it is only allowed to use the photos on the poster for judicature or public security uses. That is not free use. sугсго 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The above was about the gallery page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and SCOPE, not about the possible copyright issue. Just because a work that is not an official work is shown in an official work does not make it free of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If those 23 images are deleted, we should also delete:
- File:Ulrike Meinhof.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter.jpg
- Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep per previous DR. What a waste of time... 201.17.85.216 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (again) The above deletion request was about SCOPE and the gallery, not about the file and not about copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It's been open now since last May (!) and there doesn't seem to be any consensus.--DieBuche (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
reopened according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Forum&oldid=45130076#L.C3.B6schregelfrage and de:Bildrechte#Fahndungsfotos Isderion (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [1]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [2]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - invalid DR - Jcb (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Reopened. 1) its not an invalid DR, it is allowed to appeal. 2) if the full procedure was not followed it is not a reason to simply quash valid arguments with an unfounded "kept" and declaring the request as "invalid" (and thererfore judging that the arguments are wrong and that the copyright status is correct). Simply fix the problems or ask the requesting user to fix it! --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)The nominator is responsible for a correct DR. If a DR has been kept already for two times and the new nominator fails to make a valid DR (it *was* an invalid DR), I don't see a valid reason against a keep closure. DRs like this are always at watch lists, so nominator will notice what happened and will be able to try again to follow the procedure. The fact that the uploaders have not been notified about the deletion request is sufficient for a keep closure for the moment. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For arguments you may also read the previous requests. The last one has been closed for procedural reasons, not judging yet the arguments. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't forget to add the DR to the today deletion request log, for now it's only present in archived logs. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do that, but as long as nobody does, nobody will be allowed to close this request. Jcb (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
<quote>
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [3]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [4]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
</quote>
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first DR and the last DR just mentioned the gallery in it. It was an honest mistake. And making it very clear what is to be deleted is a very important thing in DRs, and this page is a mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The files are all listed above and in Category:Deletion requests May 2010. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete There are two aspects concerning the photographies:
- Right of the own image of the photographed people: They are not neccessarily famous people in public. The were just searched by the police for some time. They are unguilty, arrested, or free again. Keeping the pictures in public is a damage to their personal rights.
- Copyright of the photographers. It is not given for further use than the police search.
So there is not a legal base for keeping it. On the other hand, these papers are indeed part of the german history. -- Simplicius (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- For the first one; I don't think we worry about Germany conceptions of personal rights. The English Wikipedia has an article on a German murderer who won cases in Germany about the violation of his personal rights, and threatened the WMF with legal action. You join a terrorist group, earn some notoriety, you've bought yourself a place in the public record.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is law. Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Works under the terms of § 5 II dUrhG are not compatible with the conditions of free contents. Free content require the right for derivations, but these works doesn't allow this, so §§ 5 II, 62 I - III dUrhG.
- Werke gem. § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG sind nicht mit den Bedingungen der freien Inhalte kompatibel. Nur solche Werke, welche eine freie Bearbeitung zulassen, entsprechen den freien Inhalten. Dies trifft jedoch im Gegensatz zu Abs. 1 explizit nicht zu.
- --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS: See also this Discussion. --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete Das Fahnundungsplakat und alle daraus entnommenen Lichtbilder müssen leider gelöscht werden. Der § 5 aus dem Urheberrecht kann in diesem Falle nicht angewendet werden. Da der § 24 KunstUrhG (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie) für Wikipedia / Wikicommons nicht gelten kann.
- Zitat:
- Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.
Von daher leider leider löschen kandschwar (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons ist keine Behoerde. Jeder Kriminelle sollten sich den entsprechenden Paragraphen allerdings merken, falls sein Bildnis einmal ohne dessen Einwilligung von den Behoerden oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden sollte. --Janericloebe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Du verdrehst da glaube ich was. Behörden dürfen ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten (Berechtigter=Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte), andere Stellen dürfen nicht. Wikimedia Commons darf also nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Die Abgebildeten sind ggf. unschuldig, oder verurteilt, inhaftiert oder bereits entlassen. Damit ist der Drops gelutscht. Rechtspflege greift nicht mehr.- Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I changed my mind on this one; the license does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Pill's analysis is persuasive, and others seem largely in accord. I'm not concerned about protecting these people's privacy in this case, only that the law in question does not permit derivative works, and so does not comply with Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also File:FearsOfzaerak2.JPG. Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused promotional picture of some non-notable band. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No value. Added to vandalize Wikipedia [5] --Dbratland (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted; private joke or insult image. Infrogmation (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Wrong title/resolution, see File:Levenhookia_Pulcherrima_Flowers.jpg ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept - I should have speedied. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of scope Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is not only orphaned but the uploader's only photo here. Hardly usable with no encyclopedic value to the Commons project. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No images. 84.61.172.89 09:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: looks like this was a faulty upload. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2006-11-17 Emirates Towers 3.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No images. 84.61.172.89 09:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2006-11-17 Emirates Towers 3.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There already exists same photo without watermark - File:Sclerocactus parviflorus ssp havasupaiensis fh 52 3 AZBB.jpg Vearthy (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Sclerocactus parviflorus ssp havasupaiensis fh 52 3 AZBB.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
unsatisfaction Doodalah (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete despite unclear request; orphan image, deletion requested by uploader within minutes of uploading it. Infrogmation (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader blanked the page. ZooFari 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader could have used {{bad name|Gavin Williams 07.jpg}} but probably just did not know it. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, I have no idea what's it supposed to be. Trycatch (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope and possible copyvio of [6] Santosga (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded the same picture twice for a mistake Frukko (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. Next time you can tag the image with {{Duplicate}}, as I've done. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that this gif animated video is the own work of the uploader. I suppose this file was grabbed somewhere from the internet. High Contrast (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; on image it clearly reads "www.famoushotels.com"; that site states "All content © 1986-2010 by The Most Famous Hotels in the World." No in scope usefulness evident, and likely copyright violation. Infrogmation (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is out of scope. It is not used and there is no encyclopedic use of it possible High Contrast (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal montage that is not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of scope, was only used in one article according to pt:Usuário Discussão:Williamferc Martin H. (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
probably not PD-old yet --C.Löser (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep 19th century photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Subject of photo lived 1851-1911; from apparent age and fashion photo is probably no later than 1880s (compare him looking older eg [7], [8]). Any particular reason to think it is "probably not" PD? Infrogmation (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image Catfisheye (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
low-resolution, lossy duplicate of File:Frederick Wilhelm II.png thumperward (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage stamp on this envelope was issued in 1968 and is still covered by crown copyright per {{PD-UKGov}}, therefore the OTRS ticket should have been disallowed. Ww2censor (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage stamp on this envelope was issued in 1968 and is still covered by crown copyright per {{PD-UKGov}}, therefore the OTRS ticket should have been disallowed. Ww2censor (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage stamp on this envelope was issued post-1970 and is still covered by crown copyright per {{PD-UKGov}}, therefore the OTRS ticket should have been disallowed. Ww2censor (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage stamp on this envelope was issued post-1970 and is still covered by crown copyright per {{PD-UKGov}}, therefore the OTRS ticket should have been disallowed. Ww2censor (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The postage stamp on this envelope was issued in 1999 and is still covered by crown copyright per {{PD-UKGov}}, therefore the OTRS ticket should have been disallowed. Ww2censor (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Upper part shows it's scanned from a book, but uploader writes it is made by him. Berthold Werner (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The scan of the Fuggerhaus.png is not a fugging copyright violation, it is a scan of a photo I took. it is still legit and i hope you refrain from deleting this, for it would not be possible to shoot the house from this position again. trees use to grow, you know? --89.105.165.33 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could you specify in what publication this photo was used? Can you explain why you did not make a scan of the original print? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I can, it was used in a tourist information guide which is outdated now. Why would it matter why or how I scanned it? It simply seemed to fit in the article about my hometown. However, I could upload a newer and better (or both) version of this image, if you want me to. -- 89.105.165.33 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because we are trying to establish that you own the original print and are not some random person who has simply scanned the image off a brochure he or she picked up. Yes, please scan the original print and upload it if you are able to. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I can, it was used in a tourist information guide which is outdated now. Why would it matter why or how I scanned it? It simply seemed to fit in the article about my hometown. However, I could upload a newer and better (or both) version of this image, if you want me to. -- 89.105.165.33 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has not supplied any credible evidence for this being own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that
- 89.105.165.33 is the uploader
- that either of them is the photographer, or
- that either of them still owns the copyright instead of the tourist guide. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No indication if that the uploader is in fact the author, the image seems to be ripped off a webpage 87.99.27.160 03:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No information on the source page that this image is PD Amada44 talk to me 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - little propability that this is a self made work Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I asked the owner of the image for a comment. - Amada44 talk to me 19:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- It s my own work. Painted on a wall of a bathroom in 1999. If You want to see more of it take a look there >>> http://jahn-henne.de/as_though1.htm ... thx for audience. ff JaHn 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) PS I m a little bit affected. SNIFF. :o| ff JaHn 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. 84.61.131.18 09:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted image. Source: http://wisataloka.com/kultur/krontjong-portugis/ --Midori (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I got the image from http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:Gereja-tugu.jpg , could you check the information? (there's a metadata info as well); otherwise I will delete the picture from the article that uses the image.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The same user changed GFDL to fairuse. This picture taken from here is possibly not GFDL or Creative Commons either. There are other examples as well. Midori (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
1) The Polish copyright notice currently in place does not apply since this is not a work by a Polish author
2) The item could be tagged as being in the public domain, with the quoted law being §5 UrhG. The law states that:
- (1) Laws, regulations, public ordinances and notices as well as (court) decisions and official guidelines explaining such decisions enjoy no copyright.
This clearly does not apply, as the visa sticker is none of the above.
- (2) The same is true for other public works, which have been published explicitly to inform the public, with the caveat that the regulations regarding prohibition of change and citation of source of §62 Abs. 1 and §63 apply to these works.
It is very questionable whether a visa sticker is a publication whose purpose is primarily to information of the public, as they are made primarily to inform police and immigration of a person's immigration status are are extremely rarely made public knowledge. Even if one would go as far as to assert that such is the case, we still have to add a note in the copyright tag that the work may not be altered as per §62 UrhG.
Btw : The same will also apply to various other images tagged in the same way, which may have to be deleted as well.
Travelbird (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
This is my own scan of my own visa in my own passport (from my own drawer in my own cabinet), which is 19 years old and out of date. This is not a work of art, this visa is expired for a long time, this is just historical documentation of ineligible piece of paper. We can use other Public Domain-tag, what we want, for instance {{PD-ineligible}} or whatever. Julo (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in the US. 84.62.209.203 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of existing file File:GG7591 Cover.jpg WWGB (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate Amada44 talk to me 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Guðjón Magnússon from Arkform TGM ráðgjöf ehf. Reykjavík. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work, but artist died 1983, see w:Eric Grate grillo (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
News photo, no explanation to back up claim of free image. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
source file has no free license since 2009 Hekerui (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. 'Nuff said. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Photo focuses on a Communist Party election poster not placed permanently in the public for which there is no evidence it is licenses under a free license. Deletion as derivative work of a copyrighted work. Hekerui (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India for File:Kottayam-citu.JPG, as well as File:E. M. S. Namboodiripad (crop Kottayam-citu).jpg, and other Indian election posters/murals by Soman. And, i'm completely convinced that CPI(M) does not have any restrictions against that work ;-) 84.75.160.122 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- You ignored the part of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India that says "if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access" which is not the case for an election poster. Hekerui (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Hekerui, for File:Kottayam-citu.JPG, as well as for File:E. M. S. Namboodiripad (crop Kottayam-citu).jpg: imho there's no need to prove any "evidences for no restrictions", as every political party appreciates (very much, indeed!) such kind of public "advertisement" – another term maybe used for political posters – or photographs taken by anyone on every media (Wikimedia commons p.e.) for its candiates respectively for the political party itself – long, long year human experiences, honestly ;-). Regards, 84.75.160.122 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- You ignored the part of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India that says "if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access" which is not the case for an election poster. Hekerui (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Delete for two reasons: (1) Freedom of panorama in India, like in the United Kingdom, does not apply to two-dimensional objects such as posters. (2) The burden is on the uploader to prove satisfactorily that the copyright holder has consented to the image being licensed to the Commons under a free licence. We do not accept reasons such as "I'm sure the copyright holder would be very happy for more publicity", because we cannot assume this on behalf of copyright holders. Don't forget that images on the Commons may be downloaded and used freely for other purposes, including commercial purposes, and may even be modified. The copyright holder may not be so happy if he or she discovers that his or her image has been used for some embarrassing purpose that he or she was unaware of. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo is a crop of an election poster for which there is no evidence that it is free. Hekerui (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose as Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India for File:Kottayam-citu.JPG, as well as File:E. M. S. Namboodiripad (crop Kottayam-citu).jpg, and other Indian election posters/murals by Soman. And, i'm completely convinced that CPI(M) does not have any restrictions against that work ;-) 84.75.160.122 11:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India says "if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access" which is not the case for an election poster. And where is the evidence for "no restrictions" by the CPI(M)? Hekerui (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Hekerui, for File:Kottayam-citu.JPG, as well as for File:E. M. S. Namboodiripad (crop Kottayam-citu).jpg: imho there's no need to prove any "evidences for no restrictions", as every political party appreciates (very much, indeed!) such kind of public "advertisement" – another term maybe used for political posters – or photographs taken by anyone on every media (Wikimedia commons p.e.) for its candiates respectively for the political party itself – long, long year human experiences, honestly ;-). Regards, 84.75.160.122 12:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India says "if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access" which is not the case for an election poster. And where is the evidence for "no restrictions" by the CPI(M)? Hekerui (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for two reasons: (1) Freedom of panorama in India, like in the United Kingdom, does not apply to two-dimensional objects such as posters. (2) The burden is on the uploader to prove satisfactorily that the copyright holder has consented to the image being licensed to the Commons under a free licence. We do not accept reasons such as "I'm sure the copyright holder would be very happy for more publicity", because we cannot assume this on behalf of copyright holders. Don't forget that images on the Commons may be downloaded and used freely for other purposes, including commercial purposes, and may even be modified. The copyright holder may not be so happy if he or she discovers that his or her image has been used for some embarrassing purpose that he or she was unaware of. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source, authorship and licence information of each single image is missing High Contrast (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete cover of a newspaper according to description. I don't think the uploader owns copyright to this. ZooFari 04:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No permission received for this image from the Bundesarchive Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I question the "own work"; See 349 hits on http://www.tineye.com/search/bec96c842e22a257fc319d4bb92fafea97bd3c8e/?sort=size&order=desc Wouter (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. No al image, just a model! reJerchel (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Architectural models are also covered by copyright -- this is a derivative work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 11:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Photograph was taken at the United Nations, evidence is missing that it was first published in Iran. Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Note that the uploader is a prolific cross-wiki sockpuppeteer with a long jistory of uploading images, both here and at en-wiki, with false copyright info. Nsk92 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. The uploader is a serial sockpuppeteer with a long history of copyright violations, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early. This must be taken up at Commons:Undeletion requests, not by reloading the file. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this was first published in Iran. No evidence that it was published before 1980. The mikrophone in front suggest that it comes from international press (not Iran), e.g. from Deutsche Welle (logo) Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused private artwork, no educational value, only edit of this user → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 13:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 13:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess this photos can't be ineligible for copyright. Arvelius (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Private image, no educational value, only used on the talk page of the file itself → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader obtained the image, which is unused, from a website (now inaccessible), and there is insufficient information to show that he was authorized to license it to the Commons. The licences appear to have been randomly copied from another file: see the original upload log. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader obtained the image, which is unused, from a website (now inaccessible), and there is insufficient information to show that he was authorized to license it to the Commons. The licences appear to have been randomly copied from another file: see the original upload log. In addition, the image is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} to apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Poor-quality image that is replaceable by better images in "Category:Restaurants in Lübeck". As the image is badly out of focus, it is not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
While copyright on "The Mad Doctor" (1933) wasn't renewed, this particular frame (i.e. Mickey Mouse) is a derivative work from "Steamboat Willie" (1928) which is still under copyright. See also large article in LA Times: [9]. --Trycatch (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, the particular frame (Mickey's head) doesn't appear in the restored edition of Steamboat Willie which can be seen here -and neither in the other 1920ies short films like "Plane Crazy"-. Previous films from the thierties have other similar frame (but different) which is this, another version. --Coentor (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any depiction of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted as derivative work from copyrighted Steamboat Willie. It doesn't matter that this depiction is not exactly the same as earlier ones, it's still derivative work. Trycatch (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Still, while the entire movie is in PD, could the full movie -not a clip despicting the caracter- be uploaded to commons? --Coentor (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Entire movie is not in PD, it's just a mistake by folks from Internet Archive -- seems to be they have found that the copyright on the movie wasn't renewed, and then declared that this movie in PD because of this. It's not true, if the work was based on some previous work which is still copyrighted. See w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Movies and [10] for some discussion on the topic. Trycatch (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Uf. That's makes us very hard to get PD material of cartoon characters. Then the only thing We could use are the intertitles and one-shoot characters of those films? --Coentor (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Entire movie is not in PD, it's just a mistake by folks from Internet Archive -- seems to be they have found that the copyright on the movie wasn't renewed, and then declared that this movie in PD because of this. It's not true, if the work was based on some previous work which is still copyrighted. See w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Movies and [10] for some discussion on the topic. Trycatch (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Still, while the entire movie is in PD, could the full movie -not a clip despicting the caracter- be uploaded to commons? --Coentor (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any depiction of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted as derivative work from copyrighted Steamboat Willie. It doesn't matter that this depiction is not exactly the same as earlier ones, it's still derivative work. Trycatch (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this would be from "an official document of the United Nations"; watermarked by "e-motion". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
infringes copyright http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5484729 MicroX (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
infringes copyright http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14091654 MicroX (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that a scan of a newspaper can be in public domain. --Duch.seb (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that a scan of a newspaper of 1969 can be in public domain. --Duch.seb (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Blatant copyright violation Anatiomaros (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Claimed as "own work" by the uploader, the file's source can be found here. Open and shut case. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Licensing contradictions. Permission field states "© 2008 Drew Reese, All Rights Reserved." while it is licensed with PD. There's actually no proof that Drewreese (talk · contribs) is the true Drew Reese in RL. Image is also unused. --Dferg (talk · meta) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely not an own photo. Current license (PD-Art) i not usable for photos. PD status not sure. ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't take the photo - I don't know who did. What is the correct licence for a very old photo for which all copyright must surely have expired? HoveBrighton (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
1920, so 90 years. It is a formal photo taken when he received his knighthood. HoveBrighton (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The photographer would only have to live another twenty years (until 1940, 70 years ago) after taking this to put it in copyright. That's entirely possible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
unused drawing from a website with no notability as voted here en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zydeisland - out of scope Santosga (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
PD-ineligible not usable for this image. ALE! ¿…? 22:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Artsy cigarette packages, seems protected by copyright law. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted dolls. –Tryphon☂ 23:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Baby dolls design is not original enough to be copyrighted. See : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baby doll-Calineczka-2006.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dog and Skip with Valentine Teddy.jpg The paragraph on "toys as art" on COM:DW does not apply here. These are not (copyrightable) comic book figures or similar artworks made into toys, but are just dolls. It's not "art" at all.--Guil2027 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no question that all toys are subject to copyright in the USA and our rules require that images be legal there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of dolls manufactured by www.ospatoquitas.com. –Tryphon☂ 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, the main focus of the picture is two advertising sings. –Tryphon☂ 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. They are clearly the main subject of the photo. Rocket000 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands --Havang(nl) (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not permanent. Rocket000 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- But the picture shows the landscape before it was completely changed by building; and the reason. The dutch original description names the landscape: the landscape has been completely changed there and this is very illustrative for that change to come.<quote>nl|Eigen foto gemaakt in 1999 van de woningbouw in het Waalspronggebied ten noorden van Nijmegen </quote> <translation> Own picture made in 1999 of the building of houses in Waalsprong aerea north of Nijmegen</translation>. In the english translation of the descrition, the accent is changed to the sings. For me, it is clearly the "Waalsprong" before building: the landscape. The sings are illustrating what is going to happen there. It is a really free image, no copyright problems whatsoever. --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't basing my comment on the description but on the image itself. Rocket000 (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I often looked at this image, a very expressive image by the combination of the destroyed landscape and the agressive projectdevelopers billboards. This situation has been a short moment in time only, 1999, between the green landscape before and the new city quarter Waalsprong afterwards. No reason to delete such a highly valuable document, in the Netherlands considered to fall within FOP. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to COM:FOP#The_Netherlands, FOP apply to permanent works only. Advertising signs and billboards are usually not considered permanent (I'm sure once those houses sell they're not going to keep it up there for it's artistic value that future generations to enjoy). So I'm not sure why you keep saying it's covered by FOP. How? It appears this photo has an emotional effect on you, so maybe you can't assess it fairly? What I mean is, you are talking about the subject of the photo (while using words like "very expressive", "destroyed", "agressive", "highly valuable"), when this is a discussion about the photo itself. The context, purpose, and value don't change the fact that it contains copyrighted content. Rocket000 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about the reason for the deletion request: "the main focus of the picture is two advertising sings" - this is not true, the main focus is Waalsprong, that is the title given by the author, that is the message expressed in this picture. The billboards were used only here in Waalsprong, they don't have a function elsewhere, this was their permanent place till their destruction, havinbg no other place. But they did not stay there indefinitly in time. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to COM:FOP#The_Netherlands, FOP apply to permanent works only. Advertising signs and billboards are usually not considered permanent (I'm sure once those houses sell they're not going to keep it up there for it's artistic value that future generations to enjoy). So I'm not sure why you keep saying it's covered by FOP. How? It appears this photo has an emotional effect on you, so maybe you can't assess it fairly? What I mean is, you are talking about the subject of the photo (while using words like "very expressive", "destroyed", "agressive", "highly valuable"), when this is a discussion about the photo itself. The context, purpose, and value don't change the fact that it contains copyrighted content. Rocket000 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I often looked at this image, a very expressive image by the combination of the destroyed landscape and the agressive projectdevelopers billboards. This situation has been a short moment in time only, 1999, between the green landscape before and the new city quarter Waalsprong afterwards. No reason to delete such a highly valuable document, in the Netherlands considered to fall within FOP. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't basing my comment on the description but on the image itself. Rocket000 (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- But the picture shows the landscape before it was completely changed by building; and the reason. The dutch original description names the landscape: the landscape has been completely changed there and this is very illustrative for that change to come.<quote>nl|Eigen foto gemaakt in 1999 van de woningbouw in het Waalspronggebied ten noorden van Nijmegen </quote> <translation> Own picture made in 1999 of the building of houses in Waalsprong aerea north of Nijmegen</translation>. In the english translation of the descrition, the accent is changed to the sings. For me, it is clearly the "Waalsprong" before building: the landscape. The sings are illustrating what is going to happen there. It is a really free image, no copyright problems whatsoever. --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not permanent. Rocket000 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. We have two advertising signs that are clearly not de minimis in a muddy field. They are not permanent, so FOP does not apply. Therefore the image is a DW of the two signs, so we cannot keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Restored on dutch wikipedia.--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-usable license for Commons. See [11] Mikemoral♪♫ 23:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mikemoral! I have uploaded a new version of a spinning Buckminsterfullerene at Buckminsterfullerene animated.gif. Greetings from Germany, --Sponk (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The image contains a spam link. The user that uploaded the image has been warned several times since about adding their nanohub links to wikipedia, see [12]. I much prefer Sponk's version anyway and as an added bonus it doesn't include any spam links. 193.49.43.157 16:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think your version is better. Still i don't understand what copyright issues you mean. It was discussed before? Beatnik8983
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Bethlehemitischer Kindermord Krippendarstellung Playmobil.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ruhe auf der Flucht nach Ägypten Krippendarstellung Playmobil.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW; uploader had removed copyvio tag. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- All these are not derivative works of copyrighted works. These are simply photos of toys, which are not copyrightable in Germany as simple works of applied art. Brand rights or other commercial competition laws may well apply, but are not what we consider a deletion reason on the Commons. If you want to formulate and informed deletion request, you may do so, but I have removed the "speedy deletion" tags since I consider them totally wrong in these cases. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- NB: The paragraph on "toys as art" on COM:DW does not apply here. These are not (copyrightable) comic book figures or similar artworks made into toys, but are just toys desinged by a toy designer (as is a spoon by a spoon designer). It's good and simple design, but it's not "art" at all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- These are (small) three-dimensional statues, much more artistic than simple flat comic book drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is, legally, total crap. Have you any idea about the German copyright law? Please read w:de:Schöpfungshöhe. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that German courts would regard this kind of toys as de:Gebrauchskunst, but it is certainly copyrighted. The only remaining question is whether a photo would be an infringement. If you claim that your photo does not violate the author's rights, it is your job to demonstrate that with references to the legal literature. I tried to argue that here for Aalto vases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, and because apart from his intimate conviction, AndreasPraefcke has provided no proof that those toys are not eligible for copyright. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Playmobil. –Tryphon☂ 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- How difficult is it to understand that the bloody US and UK "copyright" does not apply to most of the rest of the world? We do not have any "copyright", and hence there is no possibility to show proof that they are "not eligible for copyright". So, please could you show proof that they are eligible for "Urheberrecht"? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep a) Keine Schöpfungshöhe. b) As these objects are industrially manufactured and sold in supermarkets as toys, and not in galleries as artistic work, they shouldn't be protected as "original work of the mind". -- smial (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed with smial. --Guil2027 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Toys are certainly subject to copyright in the United States, and while these toys are manufactured in Germany (or, at least, by a company whose headquarters is in Germany), they are sold in the United States and Commons' servers are in the United States, so we cannot keep them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is IMHO a stupid argument. Public sculptures are subject to copyright in the U.S., and still we keep them if the freedom of panorama in the country of the photograph allows it (liek in Germany or the Netherlands). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- True, but irrelevant. These toys are copyrighted in the USA because they are sold in the USA. Sculptures in Germany do not have a USA copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Still deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
because I don't want that my picture figures on internet Piquiboy (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Made up flag. Does not exist. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ماني (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - See also File:Flag of the Khorasan-Turks.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Khorasan-Turks.png. –Krinkletalk 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I found this article as probable source, do you think it is a reliable source? The White Lion (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Khorasan-Turks.png. Kameraad Pjotr 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
no evidence this was released under a free license by the original author Hekerui (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion This work is released to public, by the author herself, in a mass rally and gathering[1]. If this work comes into the license to which I did not referred, please let me know--Ranjithsutari (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Newspapers are also released to the public, as are modern paintings, but that doesn't mean someone is allowed to copy and redistribute them, which is what the license you added allows. For something to be hosted on Commons the original author has to give his/her consent for the work to be used under a free license or it must be shown the work has entered the public domain (for example because of age). Hekerui (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not just Newspaper, but also books, Tenders, Painting etc are released to Public. All of them hold Copyrights of the work they published, but this work do not hold any Copyrights. Unlike Newspapers which are distributed to only subscribers or purchasers. Thousands of copies are distributed to Common Public after the release by the Head of the Government of UttarPradesh, I retain one of the copy which is absolutely free to be sharedAlike. The age of this work is less than a year, as I know This work will come under Public Domain after 60 years.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Newspapers are also released to the public, as are modern paintings, but that doesn't mean someone is allowed to copy and redistribute them, which is what the license you added allows. For something to be hosted on Commons the original author has to give his/her consent for the work to be used under a free license or it must be shown the work has entered the public domain (for example because of age). Hekerui (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Currently copyright violation (Derivative work). The Mayavati government has not released the license to the public. Images issued by Government of India and the State governments are not in public domain by default like those of US govt.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
References
[edit]
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Derivative of non-free content: Political poster
no permission from site, false template Rubin16 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- OTRS ticket refers to kremlin.ru, not tatar.ru. Moreover, I've contacted with representatives of tatar.ru recently and they were not ready to release their content under free licenses. So, template is invalid and tagged images should be deleted Rubin16 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the logotype of a japanese comic book. In my opinion, it can't be considerate as a PD-text logo because it use a specific "font" which had been created especially for this logo. -Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 10:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, it doesn't matter whether it's a custom font or not, typefaces are not protected by copyrights. Hence {{PD-textlogo}} applies. –Tryphon☂ 10:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, a font is a creation as an another, it's protected by the law like any other creation, can have a commercial usage like any other creation. Moreover, as logotype are only stylised text, why others logotype are delete for copyright violation ? Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It takes more for text to be eligible for copyright. ZooFari 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This file shows a flag of the ethnic group, which lives in different countries of the same region. But it hasn't any references. So I think it's original work and must be deleted. Wertuose (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not flag of the Lezgian people. Sharval (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Commons does not editorialize on files that are in use in Wikipedias.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the previous party. Хаджимурад (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The flag is in use by other Wikimedia projects (several Wikipedia articles) and therefore in scope. According to commons:scope, "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." If you feel this flag should not be used, you should tell the Wikipedias and try to convince local communities to use another one or not to use any flag at all. After stop being in use, you can request again deletion from commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: This file is in use therefore is project scope. You can still consider using the template {{Factual accuracy}} but only after discussion in the file talk page. -- Geagea (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not Lezgi people flag. This is flag of organization "SADVAL" in 1990-1995 years. ALDKL (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Because:
- The flag is in use by other Wikimedia projects (several Wikipedia articles) and therefore in scope. According to commons:scope, "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." If you feel this flag should not be used, you should tell the Wikipedias and try to convince local communities to use another one or not to use any flag at all. After stop being in use, you can request again deletion from commons.
- If name or description are wrong, this is not a reason to delete. It is just a reason to gather consensus to fix them.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: This file is in use therefore is project scope. You can still consider using the template {{Factual accuracy}} but only after discussion in the file talk page. -- Geagea (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Have better version File:Lezgin flag.png Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@A09090091, it is only used in File:Lezgin flag.png, which is the exactly the same of this file. If it use not useless, then we can upload lots of duplicates and just use them in one version of it. - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This file has been here since 2006. The so-called "better version" (which I can't see any difference in) has only been here since 2012, so the comparison is irrelevant. It shouldn't be deleted so that older versions of pages that used it will still be legible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr.Wiki54: Prosfilaes was faster than me. I don't see a difference; older files should be kept and their newer duplicates deleted. A09090091 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091@Prosfilaes ok, i am not against the version which was written by @A09090091. But in that case one should move all pages into oldest one. - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, history merge IMHO is not needed. Their difference is 1 px on y axis and that is too small of a difference for human eye. The best thing would be a SVG version of flag, not another small resolution JPG file. A09090091 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091 ok, i asked for a help to move all of them. Now all of File:Lezgin flag.png have been moved into File:Flag of the Lezgi people.svg. I think there is no need for "png" versions. - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, history merge IMHO is not needed. Their difference is 1 px on y axis and that is too small of a difference for human eye. The best thing would be a SVG version of flag, not another small resolution JPG file. A09090091 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091@Prosfilaes ok, i am not against the version which was written by @A09090091. But in that case one should move all pages into oldest one. - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: kept the older flag, deleted the newer file:Lezgin flag.png per COM:REDUNDANT and made redirect to avoid red links on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this was flawed. The admin who closed it off simply closed by stating {{PD-ineligible}} without any rationale. Arguments presented in the discussion ranged from "we need it", "all flags should be marked PD" (regardless of laws), to "there is no original authorship". Looking at the flag there is obviously original authorship, whihc is a combination of Arabic text intertwined with what is clear "artwork". Unless someone is able to arrange with Hezbollah for the release of this flag under a suitable licence, it should be deleted from commons. Also, if anyone is going to claim that it is PD-ineligible, in that it has no original authorship, they will need to present evidence of this in both the US and the country of origin, rather than simply stating it is ineligible with no reasoning behind it. Sandstein's comments in the original discussion were spot on the mark. russavia (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- NOTE: File:CoA of Hezbollah.png is a derivative of this file, so if consensus is that the flag file should be deleted, then the derivative file would also need to go. But of course I would ask that a little time be given in order for local projects to hold onto these files (with reduced size) in order for them to be used inline with local project NFCC criteria. --russavia (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to say, this certainly does not look ineligible under grounds of text or simple shapes. While I'm no expert on arabic, I'm pretty certain an AK47 is not one of the letters of their alephbet. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick note: I agree that the closure was flawed and a new request should be held in which the closing admin should provide a rationale at its closure :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I was the original nominator and was advised by Russavia of this discussion. The work patently passes any reasonable threshold of originality: it does not consist only of public domain shapes composed in a non-creative manner. Accordingly, it is subject to copyright. Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- (The fact that you kind of got on people's nerves a little during the last deletion discussion might possibly have had an influence on why the image was not deleted then.) I still wonder what is the difference between the Hezbollah flag and a number of national flags which are copyright-protected in their home countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags would that be? Sandstein (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags they would be are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is centred only on this file (and its derivative file), so it would be great if editors didn't get sidetracked on issues which are not relevant to the discussion of this file. However, having said that, and albeit briefly, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of ASEAN.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of NATO.svg are relevant. Also AnonMoos, the mere fact that Sandstein nominated the file for deletion, and with more than valid reasoning, is not reason to tell him that he got on people's nerves and that he might have been responsible for it being kept. For whatever reason it was kept, I doubt very much Sandstein's valid reasoning was responsible. --russavia (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags would that be? Sandstein (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- (The fact that you kind of got on people's nerves a little during the last deletion discussion might possibly have had an influence on why the image was not deleted then.) I still wonder what is the difference between the Hezbollah flag and a number of national flags which are copyright-protected in their home countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hezbolla has a press office (somewhere) if we may ask there under wich conditions it's allowed to use their flag.--Sanandros (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor was to contact Hezbollah and get explicit permission to have their logo/flag licenced under a free licence, I would withdraw the nomination if it was successful. Their permission would need to state which licence, and also a statement that they understand it can be used commercially and modified at will (or at the very least have this explained to them in the request). --russavia (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is somebody of the Portal:Mid East here? Maybe the could help us to get a contact to Hezbolla.--Sanandros (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The best place to find someone would likely be on either enwp or arwp in portals or wikiprojects. --russavia (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is somebody of the Portal:Mid East here? Maybe the could help us to get a contact to Hezbolla.--Sanandros (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor was to contact Hezbollah and get explicit permission to have their logo/flag licenced under a free licence, I would withdraw the nomination if it was successful. Their permission would need to state which licence, and also a statement that they understand it can be used commercially and modified at will (or at the very least have this explained to them in the request). --russavia (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Whilethe previous discussion may have been flawed, we still must consider that a) the flag is majority-text, and b) the shape of the AK47 and other designs are all simple enough that they should fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. There has been general consensus to keep flags of countries, regardless of copyright status in those countries, and I see no reason why the flag of a political party should be much different. Furthermore, considering that we don't know who designed the flag, it's equally impossible to determine who, if anyone, is the copyright holder. While my understanding of copyright is undoubtedly flawed, I believe that this should in some way qualify it as being PD as an anonymous work. Mnmazur (talk)
- Not afaik, more likely we would be required to wait until 50yrs or so after publication. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization. It cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if "Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization" under any law relevant to Wikipedia Commons, I'm not aware how that would have any bearing on the organization's or its members' capacity to hold copyright under U.S. copyright law. Even criminals can own property, intellectual or otherwise. Sandstein (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless Hezbollah is a legally-recognized person under the law (i.e. a corporation or such other creature of statute with similar rights), then it cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were, afaik, voted in as the legitimate Palestinian government. I think that qualifies. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's Hamas, not Hezbollah. Lexicon (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- But they where voted in the Lebanise parliament--Sanandros (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, my bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- If copyright in this flag is not held by Hezbollah, the organization, then it is held by whichever person(s) designed the flag. At any rate, somebody holds the copyright, and whether or not they are terrorists does not matter for purposes of copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if that's actually the case, given all the new US anti-terrorism legislation (which I assume somewhere addresses property of terrorist organizations). I unfortunately, however, don't have the time to properly research the matter. Lexicon (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- If copyright in this flag is not held by Hezbollah, the organization, then it is held by whichever person(s) designed the flag. At any rate, somebody holds the copyright, and whether or not they are terrorists does not matter for purposes of copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, my bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- But they where voted in the Lebanise parliament--Sanandros (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's Hamas, not Hezbollah. Lexicon (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were, afaik, voted in as the legitimate Palestinian government. I think that qualifies. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless Hezbollah is a legally-recognized person under the law (i.e. a corporation or such other creature of statute with similar rights), then it cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Clearly passes the threshold of originality. Someone owns the copyright. He may not be a very nice person. In all probability he was assassinated by Mossad years ago. But it's not Public Domain, and it's not licensed in a way that we can use it. Buddy431 (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Regardless of political orientation, this was most likely designed by an artist living and working in a country with no copyright laws. Any such artist has no reason to consider any of his works to be protected by other laws, whilst producing in them a country that does not recognise the need to protect artistic endeavour legally, because they view the fruits of these labours as expressions of God to be shared with the masses. --thejake
Both File:Flag_of_Hezbollah.svg and File:CoA of Hezbollah.png are deleted. The image on the flag exceeds the threshhold of originality (i.e. the drawing of a hand holding assault rifle is by no means common property and does contain original authorship). Lebanon has copyright laws (see Template:PD-Lebanon) and nobody provided any arguments, why Hezbollah flag or logo are exempt from copyright. Since both files are in use on multiple pages in local wikis I will give a day or two to reupload the files in local wikis. Then I'll delete them. Blacklake (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This logo has apparently a complicated history of being kept and being deleted in various deletion discussions, but I see that after being kept once in early 2007, it was deleted three times in late 2007, 2010 and 2011. So it should probably be deleted again? FWIW, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon does not mention any exceptions for logos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Someone had uploaded a Hezbollah flag over a simplified version that was own work of the uploader. Please be notified that I reverted the change per Commons:Overwriting existing files. Regards HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion above. --Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Image could equally well portray autosomal recessive inheritance --78.22.8.249 10:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - ip-number is wrong, and anyway, the file is widely used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how IP number is relevant to be honest. It's also quite easy to make a picture that unambiguously identifies an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern and is therefore not as confusing. Furthermore usage doesn't mean it's correct (the same way the amount of hits for a search term on Google doesn't prove anything). 157.193.12.50 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you are free to make a figure that is unambigious. This pattern is correct. Its statistics would be less likely for recessive inheritance, overwhelmingly so if one assumes that the initial affected male is heterozygous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how IP number is relevant to be honest. It's also quite easy to make a picture that unambiguously identifies an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern and is therefore not as confusing. Furthermore usage doesn't mean it's correct (the same way the amount of hits for a search term on Google doesn't prove anything). 157.193.12.50 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
In order for the disease to be autosomal dominant, the affected male at generation 1 would have to pass on his dominant trait, even if it be his one mutant type allele if he is heterozygous, to ALL of his children in generation two. I agree that the pedigree is not representative of an autosomal dominant disorder and should be revised or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.159.214 (talk • contribs)
- Nonsense. It just shows that the affected male is heterozygous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it was a recessive trait, and only the male was affected and the female had two wild-type alleles, then none of the children in the first generation would be affected - although 50% would be carriers. Children in the second generation would be affected only if the partner was also a carrier of the gene. None of the partners of the first generation children carried the allele. If it was a recessive gene, none of the children in the second generation would be affected by the gene either. This diagram clearly shows that the affected male at the top of the diagram has both the dominant gene and is a carrier of the wild type recessive allele. Some children inherited his wild-type recessive allele and some of his children inherited the dominant allele. Statistically, 50% of his children should have the dominant allele and 50% should have the recessive allele. This diagram is not consistent with recessive inheritance. This diagram clearly shows classic Mendelian inheritance for an autosomal dominant trait when the father is heterozygous for the dominant trait. (Elizabeth)
Kept - Elizabeth's analysis is correct (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, and there is insufficient evidence that the uploader is authorized to license it to the Commons. It should be transferred to a Wikipedia project and used under a fair-use justification, if permitted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 08:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it is you left the city logo on the City of Temple Terrace page, it took me some time to locate it, and the city does not object to its use.
Cordially, Grant — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.223.131.174 (talk) 16:34, 2010 September 6 (UTC)- If you can get the city to release this image under a free license, please have them send permission to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: If you can't obtain this confirmation in writing, the logo will have to be deleted from the Commons. If you wish to continue using the logo, please upload the logo to the English Wikipedia, having first ascertained that you comply with the non-free content criteria. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I could never get the image to load properly (add it to a category or a page and see for yourself, the image dose not load, even as a preview in a category, I don't know what I did wrong). I would of requested someone just fix the problem but the page I uploaded it for has since been seperated making it unnecessary to show a difference between two hairstyles which means as far as I know wikipedia no longer has any use for the picture making it a waste of space. If someone could either fix why it doesn't load in a preview or delete it that would be great, I have no preference. Freikorp (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This category, as well as the parent Category:Fast food restaurants in Mechanicsburg, Ohio and grandparent Category:Restaurants in Mechanicsburg, Ohio categories, reflects overcategorisation. Having walked all through this village, I can assure you that there are no other fast food restaurants in Mechanicsburg, whether Subway or another sort, and there aren't enough restaurants there in general to warrant a village-specific category. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 14:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Most of these pictures are ok (except maybe one or two), and again you didn't placed DR tags on the pictures, and didn't notified the uploaders. Trycatch (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Images are construction images and necessary for Wikipedia. Jerchel (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This looks like it's derived from another data source, so is NOT own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
source url is not used by the MOFAT of Republic of Korea. Also. there is no evidence that this image is freely licensed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
PD ineligible is not usable. However, it should be chekced whether the photo is in the public domain due to its age. ALE! ¿…? 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- The picture illustrates a person who have died more than 70 years ago, the original source is unknown, and many arab governmental sites are using it without any issues, I really do not think it is a copyright violation. Ironlol (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Still PD-ineligible is not usable and when need some information about the source / author of the photo. Otherwise it can not be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no author/source/date of first publication and thus no way to determine whether this is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Has been subject to a complaint by the subject per OTRS Ticket#: 2010070610045141. Brian (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- And what was the complaint? Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information, also in none of the Commons queues there is a ticket with this number - Jcb (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't base this skull on any specific specimen. Conty (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope: not in use on any project, uploader says it is inaccurate (see last deletion request) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted. INeverCry 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Xmplary
[edit]- File:Zivios copy.jpg
- File:Zivioslogo.jpg
- File:Technicalbackend.jpg
- File:Technical-backend.png
- File:Technical-backend.jpg
- File:Screenshot-1.png
All contributions from this user (some are duplicates) are unused logos and screenshots of en:Zivios, article was deleted from en wiki for no notability/advertising - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Unknown license. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 
21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm not the author Ares.rocket (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:MicroX
[edit]- File:Monumental U Occidente.JPG
- File:PeruBrazilanthems.JPG
- File:Monumental Sur Camiseta.JPG
- File:PeruBrazil final.JPG
- File:Monumentalpalcos.JPG
- File:Monumentalseats.JPG
- File:MonumentalUNorte.JPG
- File:Nacional Lima Oriente.JPG
- File:Monumental U Oriente.JPG
- File:Nacional Lima Oriente 2.JPG
- File:Estadio Monumental Panoramic.JPG
- File:Panoramic Monumental Peru.JPG
- File:Palcos Estadio Monumental Peru.jpg
I have misinterpreted the Commons policy on "own work". These files do not belong to me and its copyright holder has not released them into the public domain. --MicroX (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
[Copied from my talk page:]
- Hi,I uploaded some images that do not belong to me a while back. I nominated them for deletion in September but no action was taken. These images are not mine nor am I the copyright holder. --MicroX (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am skeptical -- please tell me the whole story -- where you got them, whose they are, etc. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
[copy ends]
These images were taken by a relative of mine. He occasionally e-mails me these photographs. I uploaded them thinking I was the owner since they were on my computer but I asked at the here about this situation and they said that if I didn't get my relative's permission, then they couldn't be on the Commons. --MicroX (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. The instructions you cite above are correct. Since these are in wide use, is it possible that your relative would give permission? If so, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS and we'll put a hold on this. If not, we will have to delete them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- How much time do I have? --MicroX (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you say that you believe that your relative will give OTRS consent, we'll wait a week or two -- remember that even if they get deleted, we can always undelete them when permission comes -- we save everything, "deleted" just means it is no longer available for public use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- How much time do I have? --MicroX (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)