Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/01

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive January 2006

January 1

[edit]

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

Wrestlingfigs.com

[edit]

Reason: Does not belong here. Has already been locked on Wikipedia due to vandalism, and has also been vandalized here.spman 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Automatic-greande-launcher.gif

[edit]

Reason: Uploader's request. Replaced by Image:Automatic-grenade-launcher.gif. Bukvoed 10:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:1477 Pays-bas bourguignons.png

[edit]

Orphaned and has a corresponding SVG already. I'm not sure why this file was ever uploaded - a perfectly good SVG was already there. Maybe it predated the software feature. Deco 04:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Scissors.png

[edit]

Already has an SVG. Orphaned. Deco 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graz

[edit]

Reason: More vandalism from Wrestlingfigs.com spman 18:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - I just reverted the IP vandalism and all is fine. May need to be temporary or IP-blocked --Denniss 00:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was not aware that this was a legitimate article. -spman 00:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalized again, requesting IP-Blocking for this article --Denniss 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denniss, you might want to join the discussion at Commons:Village pump#Semi-protection. User:dbenbenn 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

[edit]

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

Template:PD-art-life-50

[edit]

The template, which was created today, asserts that paintings where the painter died more than 50 years ago are public domain. I don't know of any reason to think this is true. I think the three pictures that use this template will have to be deleted, too. User:dbenbenn 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template, which is a copy of the one on Wikipedia, for images that are PD in countries where copyright law is fifty years instead of 70 (such as Australia). But if the official policy is that anything younger than seventy years can't be hosted on Commons i'll understand that. Husky 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anything that's public domain can be hosted here. For example, Template:PD-AR-Photo is for Argentine photos that are more than 25 years old. If works first published in Australia become PD after 50 years, we should have a template for those. But as far as I know, 50 year old works aren't PD in the US. User:dbenbenn 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually there are things in the PD in the US which are fifty years old, but that's very complicated. I think Night of the Living Dead might be an example because the authours forgot to put a copyright notice on the film. Husky 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Image-Zeta (2005) 5 Day strike.gif

[edit]

OR - Misnamed, is located at Image:Zeta (2005) 5 Day strike.gif. --Romeo Bravo 16:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be deleted. ¦ Reisio 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems already deleted.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think it needs one of those dummy image delete. -- WB 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted I restored article and deleted again. I hope there will be no such dummy any more.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rltdr.jpg

[edit]

And Image:Rltbirdie.jpg. As stated, pictures are coming from http://www.travoltanet.com/ But there is no evidence of any permission whatsoever so that I consider those 2 pictures as copyvio pure and simple. villy ♦✎ 18:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

[edit]

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

Greek letters

[edit]

All of the following images, listed at an old version of User:WebBoy/Greek_Alphabet:

Sorry for listing so many images at once, but I replaced these all at once with SVGs since they're obviously related. I've orphaned them all too. Their replacements are named (letter name)_uc_lc.svg (which stands for uppercase, lowercase). The SVGs have some differences in whitespace, but the letters themselves are identical, as exactly the same characters of the same font was used. They are not derived from the PNGs, so I could also put my SVGs under a much more liberal license. Deco 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am currently considering replacing the SVGs that replaced these images, in turn, with markup combining single-glyph SVGs. So the deletion list might grow. Deco 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

MENNONITÉ

[edit]

Another text article, this time in czech language --Denniss 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:TIME

[edit]

Fair use template, please delete (or speedy delete) --Denniss 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it redirect to Template:Fair use, to discourage anyone else from recreating it. Image:1101250105 400.jpg, the only image using the template, is a cover from 1925. I guess that's not old enough to be PD ... User:dbenbenn 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check here [Fair use TIME magazine covers] there are TONS f Time Magazine covers with this template, please check before deleting the template or the image (see just ONE example here: [1]) TY. --Rolf obermaier 12:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO Fair use at the Commons!!! Read Commons:Licensing --Denniss 13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Madryn.jpg

[edit]

This photo comes from a website, where the photographer wrote "This image is a free download and can be used royalty-free in your designs". It seems to me that doesn't equate to public domain. In particular, the author didn't say anything about allowing derivative works. User:dbenbenn 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against - And, what is "royalty-free"??? For me if it is royalty-free is Public Domain. Loco085 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Royalty-free most certainly does not imply public domain, and in fact many licenses we don't accept such as noncommercial licenses are royalty free. Literally, royalty free means that you can use the picture in certain ways without paying the photographer, but does not necessarily allow free derivative works, commercial use including selling by third parties, and so on. The photographer must release it under an explicit license that we recognise, or at least make a clear legal statement. Deco 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-commercial images

[edit]

Non-commercial. It's been listed here before, but read this page before voting again.

-- WB 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this entry is completely invalid IMO - please see preceding entry Template:Deletion requests#My own images made by the same user regarding the same images. ¦ Reisio 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have to delete them - the user who uploaded them is not the copyright owner, and the copyright owner does not (according to the uploader) wish to release them under a suitable license. Although I rather disagree with this person's motives, there's no getting around the fact that we can't accept these. Deco 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. According to that logic anybody can start claiming "Hey - my brother took those images of the planet Pluto, so you have to delete them". If he'd wanted them deleted because it dawned on him that he didn't have the authority to license them, he probably would've said that, but he didn't...not until it became glaringly obviously to him that we don't just give up images.
Now, if he wants to get his parents to corroborate his story and most likely make complete liars of themselves just to deprive us of these images, that's fine by me, but we should at least make them go to the trouble of verifying their participation in this likely sham. ¦ Reisio 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's an egregious loophole, but I don't see any way short of cryptographic authentication that we can prove that any supporting statement came from the contributor's parents - and even authentication is suspect when we don't know the identity of the contributor. He could assume the identity of his own parent. The best thing I can think of is that maybe we can examine the images for evidence that he did or didn't take them. Deco 05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this is causing so much trouble here. I do not know how else to prove this... Well, the easiest is to see that I am not a photographer. As you can see in the Pentium photograph I took myself, it's terrible. Compare that to nice pictures linked above. That's the best I can do. If you can e-mail your phone number, which I doubt, I can ask my parents to speak to you, if that's what you wanted... By the way Reisio, stop editting the image pages. What's done was NEVER done. Oh, also, I don't own a Pentium 4 Williamette processor. I only own a Prescott. So that might help somewhat? -- WB 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As bad as these proofs/reasons may be, Reisio, take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Pringles ✈ 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:IMG 4656.JPG

[edit]

My browser "kindly" filled in the destination filename when I chose the source file, thus obliterating my previously chosen filename. I didn't notice until after I uploaded. I've since uploaded with a more reasonble filename Image:Lexington Texas City Hall 2005-01-02.jpeg. Deh 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phr 11:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:MauricioMarinho propina TVCamara.jpg

[edit]

This video comes from TV Câmara, the television network of the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, the lower house of the Brazilian Congress, and is copyrighted. The Chamber allows it to be used for any purpose, if the source (TV Câmara) is given.

But this image is not a work of TV Câmara, it´s a screenshoot of third party video maker. Additionaly, I would like to know where is the source that says that TV Câmara videos are allowed to be used for any purpose. --Patrick-br msg 16:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the authorization at the TV Câmara website. You can find for example the following message: Reprodução autorizada mediante citação da TV Câmara (Reproduction is granted if you cite the source TV Camara). Several TV Stations in Brazil including commercial ones use videos from TV Camara without worrying about it. --Carlosar 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the picture, I think that we can use it without any trouble. The video is not a commercial production and there is not even a declared author -although we have suspicitions about who made it !!! The video was made in a clandestine manner and since then it has been broadcasted by several TV stations including TV Camara. With whom all these TV stations requested authorization? By its nature, the video is already at public domain. Several sites, including BBC, Folha de S. Paulo, Estado de S. Paulo, Veja published pictures of this video. In my opinion we can use the pictures safely. Anyway, I can contact TV Camara and we can see what they say. --Carlosar 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides:

Capítulo IV Art. 46. Não constitui ofensa aos direitos autorais:

III - a citação em livros, jornais, revistas ou qualquer outro meio de comunicação, de passagens de qualquer obra, para fins de estudo, crítica ou polêmica, na medida justificada para o fim a atingir, indicando-se o nome do autor e a origem da obra;

VIII - a reprodução, em quaisquer obras, de pequenos trechos de obras preexistentes, de qualquer natureza, ou de obra integral, quando de artes plásticas, sempre que a reprodução em si não seja o objetivo principal da obra nova e que não prejudique a exploração normal da obra reproduzida nem cause um prejuízo injustificado aos legítimos interesses dos autores.

Delete
  1. Reprodução autorizada mediante citação da TV Câmara (Reproduction is granted if you cite the source TV Camara). So, there is no permition to make derivative work.
  2. The legal text that you cite in portuguese says that you can use small pieces of copyrighted work for study purpose (III) or if the derivative work is not a mere reproduction of the original work and does not harm the original copyright owner (IV). I can´t see how both are compatible with GNU FDL.
--Patrick-br msg 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-50

[edit]

And all images using it, the same reason to delete as Template:PD-art-life-50, see Template:Deletion_requests#January_2 just above. There's only a small number of countries with this special law, not usable on the Commmons as it's meant to serve all wikis. --Denniss 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Image:Takedanomiya Kotoku.jpg, for example, is now public domain everywhere, isn't it? We have Template:PD-AR-Photo for Argentina; I see no reason not to have a special template for Japan. User:dbenbenn 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you would like to. However, this is not only for Japan. And the law is not special, and usable for all countries agreed to Berne Convent.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 54MHz 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ramaria flava.jpg

[edit]

Sorry, this image seems very likely to be Calocera viscosa and is not a Ramaria species. --Ericsteinert 21:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, redundant to Image:Calocera viscosa 1.jpg. Thuresson 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

[edit]

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

Template:Thumb

[edit]

A template that the creator has used on 11 image pages to link to "thumbnail articles". This has been discussed before; see Commons:Deletion requests/Archives05#"% articles" - UNdeletion. I move that the template be orphaned and deleted, and that all the % articles it was used to link to be deleted as well. User:dbenbenn 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WB 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 54MHz 04:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:RomanRidge.svg

[edit]

My first attempt at making a SVG file. I had a 'stupid' moment and forgot to look at the file size before I uploaded it. Please delete this-I already have a PNG version of this file on wikipedia which I will use instead. Thanks --JeremyA 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with uploading large files. The generated thumbnail version will be PNG and will be small enough, depending on size. If you can upload a smaller version of the same SVG graphic over it that's fine. Deco 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. SVGs resize better than PNG. -- Pringles ✈ 06:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought that there might be an error in the file too, but it turns out that the image server crashed just after I uploaded it. I withdraw my deletion request. JeremyA 05:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SVGs resize better. -- WB 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - 54MHz 04:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kept－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DPF.jpg

[edit]

There is no source and brazilian government work is not public domain by default. --Patrick-br msg 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WB 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 54MHz 04:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sign

[edit]

This appears to be a template for customizing your signature. Not only does it not work (it's hard coded with the date December 26), but it's easy to customize the signature in Special:Preferences. This temlate is only used in one place; I suggest it be substed there and deleted. User:dbenbenn 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WB 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Keep Please don't delete it, it work look below. Date was blocked because I didn't know how to insert, now it's ok (5 ~). == Please sign your postings ==

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ +/−
Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions
Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions
As a courtesy to other editors, it is Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
deleete - redundant to Special:Preferences. See w:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. Thryduulf 13:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:* It's the same but less accesible than this template, here you juste replace by your username and all is ok, not neccessary to change your préférences

* {{sign||lyhana8}} add a pipe "|" at the end (after username) and it hide the date.

:* Another point is the little longer of the syntax:
 :: [[user:lyhana8|lyhana8]] [[user talk:lyhana8|<small>({{color|green|Talk}})</small>]]
 :: {{sign||lyhana8}}
 :* Moreover this template make a standardisation of signature (and I use it ;). :lyhana8 - (talk)

Delete: Template busy server so... (if you know how to make small date in preferences tell me), thx. - lyhana8 (Talk) - 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Duck-roasted.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded this after looking at en:Duck and noticing there was description but no pics of ducks used as food, and I just happened to have snapped this pic at an xmas dinner a few days earlier (someone had asked me to take it). I linked it there but almost immediately another editor removed the link saying it's a low quality picture. I decided that was the correct decision. The picture is really not any good, just a random snapshot uploaded on an impulse, and I don't think it's being used anywhere. So I doubt anyone will miss it if it goes away. Phr 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I liked it so I did some stuff to it. --Fb78 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's even worse now. Phr 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe I was just hungry at the time :) --Fb78 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't be so hard on yourselves. I think the new version is great. --Tysto 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the older version, keep the newer version. Delete the author still wishes to. -- WB 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a nice picture and potentially useful. WB is voting delete solely to promote his own political agenda (authors should be able to delete their own stuff). I haven't heard any follow-up statement from Phr, and even his original statement wasn't very strong. Deco 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here, I still think it's an awful picture, especially the color balance (on-camera flash). "Potentially useful" was refuted by experiment--putting it on the Duck page got it taken down almost immediately. I'm not too worked up about it one way or the other, I just don't want for Commons to be loaded up with crappy snapshots of boring things. Taking a good picture of that type requires a lot of setup, both of the stuff being photographed (right now it's almost a gross-out picture) and of lighting (I'd like to have a couple of studio flashes with softboxes for that shot, plus lots more skill). If someone wants to make a version with the blue channel toned way down, I'd be interested in seeing it. I think the version up there right now looks even worse than the first version, and thought it was intended that way. Phr 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm biased for deleting, so a warning before you read. I think it was in one of the archived discussions, but yeah. Should Commons be a endless storage place for any sort of picture just because it's freely licensed? Your picture isn't bad at all, but some images (like mine, haha) are really crappy, but it's solely kept for the reason of "potentially useful" and that it's already released. Since there are far better pictures depicting the same thing, it's not even used in Wikipedia, and if it was "potentially useful," it could be used as a demonstration of a bad picture. (see this) I realize that images are really important on Commons, but there should be some quality control as well. -- WB 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must admit that I am biased in this voting. However, I support. The second version looks good though. So keep for that. -- WB 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really confused--someone has edited the shot to remove all the stuff from the background. I guess that's an improvement, but is there some reason I can't see the old versions any more? Were they deleted, or does Commons just not store them? I'm new at this. Phr 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was archiving them because someone pointed it out, and I happened to agree. The ones you are missing are now stored at Commons:Deletion requests/Archives05. -- WB 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No that's something different. I think I now see what happened: I have to click "file history" to see old versions of the pic. I was confused by clicking "history" which only showed old versions of the description text. I think that's a Wikimedia bug and I should probably bring that up elsewhere. Anyway, Fb78's version is much better than the original one. I at first thought it was worse because I didn't realize that the background was gone, so I thought the pic had just been squashed down and it looked weird. Of course it's impossible for the end result to be really good because the original pic was poor to start with. Fb78 has now done much more work on this picture than I did, so if s/he wants to keep it up, I'm willing to withdraw the deletion request. Phr 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could still ask them to delete the older revisions. -- WB 08:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about that. On Wikipedia, if I write something and then decide I don't like it, I can revert it, but it's fine and good that it's still visible in the history if someone wants to dig for it. Or I can edit it until I like it. With images, it's a bit different, because it's almost impossible to edit a bad photo into a good one. But Fb78 improved this shot a lot. As mentioned, I'm new at uploading images, so this is probably a typical newbie experience (it looks like you've done the same thing). The lesson for both of us is to just be a bit more discriminating when choosing what to upload. Phr 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just need to learn how to take pictures well. Haha. Well, Wikipedia is articles and owner/authorship on those are much different than images, where you take a picture, and for most of them, they "are the owners." Text can be easily editted and in few edits, it might not even resemble what it was a few minutes ago. Images, however, stay here indefinately. Unlike articles which are not associated with people, images are. In my opinion, the problem with image page is that the revision/history is visible in the page itself. I would have liked it if images were like articles, that have separate history that doesn't get Googled or mirrored. Anyway, deletion request withdrawn completely? -- WB 09:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deletion request withdrawn. I do think file history and old versions should be retained except in extreme cases. I'd like to be able to post anonymously though, like (until recently) was possible on wikipedia. Phr 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr: I understand if you think it's a bad picture, but I really don't think it's that bad, especially the edited version. The fact that one editor of one article rejected it is immaterial; there are articles about ducks on every Wikipedia, and one of them might want to use it. What if we write an article about poultry cooking in the future? Your subject is unique and we have no suitable replacement picture. Must keep. Deco 09:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think the existing pics on en:Duck are of high quality and this pic was really out of place there, but maybe it could be useful in a cooking article. Since a number of people actually seem to want to keep this thing though, I'll withdraw the deletion request. To WB: your Pentium pic is fine except a little bit out of focus. There's nothing wrong with using it til you get a chance to shoot a better one. It's a technical illustration and as such doesn't need to look "appetizing" the way that a food picture should. In general: I can think of some policy approaches to deal with this kind of thing (which must happen often) but this page isn't the right place for that. Phr 11:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS to Fb78: thanks very much for the editing work and my apologies for at first not noticing what had happened. Also, the images on your user page are great. Phr 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- 54MHz 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the photo to Wikibooks:Cookbook:Duck, where I think it fits right in. And if the improved version is kept, the original should certainly be kept. User:dbenbenn 15:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, cool. Thanks. Phr 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

[edit]

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

Template:TVCamaraBr and all files under Category:Videos by TV Camara from Brazil

[edit]

This video comes from TV Câmara, the television network of the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, the lower house of the Brazilian Congress, and is copyrighted. The Chamber allows it to be used for any purpose, if the source (TV Câmara) is given.

There is no source on camara.gov.br saying that the Chamber allows it to be used for any purpose, only "Reprodução autorizada mediante citação" (Reproduction is granted if you cite the source TV Camara). It doesn´t allow derivative work. --Patrick-br msg 12:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, cite os vídeos que considera trabalhos derivados. Se o vídeo é uma cópia exata do material produzido pela TV Câmara (isto é, o conteúdo não foi alterado) ele não é um material derivado. Estou correto?

A TV Câmara, assim como outros órgãos do Governo brasileiro permite que terceiros divulguem o material que produzem, bastante para isso, não esquecer de atribuir os respectivos créditos. No website da TV Câmara há avisos bastante claros dizendo que a divulgação do material produzido pela TV Câmara é livre. Aviso semelhante é encontrado em outros websites do Governo, como o da Agência Brasil, da TV Senado e da Rádio Senado. Na Rádio Senado há inclusive um pequeno tutorial que dá dicas às rádios que quiserem usar o conteúdo do site.

Em relação à TV Câmara, deve ser lembrado também que o material produzido por ela é reproduzido freqüentemente por outros canais de televisão do Brasil. Esses canais contam com equipes próprias para produzir o próprio material, mas algumas vezes por comodidade ou por outra conveniência acabam usando o material da TV Câmara, o que não é proibido.

Quero ainda novamente lembrar, que em todos os links para vídeo da TV Câmara no seu website, inclusive para aqueles com transmissão ao vivo em tempo real, não há nenhuma advertência de direitos autorais ou coisa parecida, muito pelo contrário. Em todos os links para os vídeos da TV Câmara você encontra logo abaixo do vídeo a seguinte inscrição: Reprodução autorizada mediante citação da TV Câmara.

Por conseguinte, considero perfeitamente legal e correto usar o material da TV Câmara. --Carlosar 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eu posso até concordar com você no que diz respeito a veiculação de vídeos de terceiros. Contudo todos os vídeos da Categoria TV Câmara são reproduções dos materiais produzidos pela equipe da TV Câmara. Eu concordaria se houvesse na categoria por exemplo algum vídeo de algum documentário produzido pela TV Globo, por exemplo, ou algum trecho de filme (ainda que a exibição de um trecho não seja ilegal). --Carlosar 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Em relação à discussão sobre a validade de alguns vídeos da Categoria TV Câmara, acho que é possível questionar alguns que não estão bem explicados. Contudo eu considero um exagero questionar todos os vídeos da categoria. Alguns vídeos são cópias exatas, downloads do site da TV Câmara (e em todos os vídeos do site há a mensagem que eles podem ser usados, desde que seja citada a fonte). Além disso, deve-se ressaltar que a TV Câmara é uma TV gratuita, conforme especificado na lei que a criou.

Delete, IMHO. In few words, Carlosar says that he is not uploading derivative work (Por favor, cite os vídeos que considera trabalhos derivados, "Please, tell me what are the videos that you think are derivative work") and that brazilian commercial tv channels are using this videos, so commons can use then too. In our talk pages I´m trying to explain that brazilian government work is not public domain by default. I´m also telling him that in commons derivative work authorization is a must, and there is a difference between Agência Brasil and TV Câmara. Agência Brasil says "O uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre" (You are free to use it), so there is no restriction to derivative work. In TV Câmara, we are allowed to copy (Reprodução autorizada mediante citação, "Reproduction is granted if you cite the source TV Camara"), which is not the same. --Patrick-br msg 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, should fit well to the template {{Attribution}} if reuse/reproduction is granted without any other restriction than citing the source. --Denniss 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t see how this solve derivative work question. --Patrick-br msg 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless derivative work is allowed.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 09:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has somebody taken official contact with this TV channel? David.Monniaux 13:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosar told me he sent an email. --Patrick-br msg 12:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted. -- WB 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:US tanks pass through Coutances.jpg

[edit]

Reason: lower quality version of Image:Coutances.jpg.

Delete - --W.wolny 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Field piece in the Periers sector.jpg

[edit]

Reason: lower quality version of Image:155mm-howitzer-france.gif.

Delete - --W.wolny 14:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Osi.jpg

[edit]

Album-cover-artwort --Flominator 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like a photograph to me... ¦ Reisio 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The decription says it's an album artwork. -- WB 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the description says it's a photograph of an "album", not a photograph from some album. ¦ Reisio 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is an album cover, see http://www.osiband.com/album.php --grmwnr 03:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh haha a CD album cover :p ¦ Reisio 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)::Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:ibook

[edit]

Empty, redundant with Category:iBook which is the correct name. --grmwnr 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 54MHz 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Christianflaglarge.png

[edit]

Orphaned across all wikis, redundant to Image:Flag of Christians.svg —Gabbe 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Father Damien, 1889.jpeg

[edit]

I recived a rather official email through the helpdesk about this one. It appears that though the orginal black and white engraveing is indeed public domain the coloured version is not. since the colours were added somewhat latter.Geni 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

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

Image:3Dbrain.gif

[edit]

As the uploader, I wish this image to be deleted. It serves no purpose, nor is it referenced anywhere. --Semiconscious 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I think it could be nice in en:Magnetic resonance imaging and perhaps en:human brain. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to en:Magnetic resonance imaging. ¦ Reisio 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather it not be on here though: it's poor quality and it didn't tun out the way I wanted it to. As the uploader don't I have a certain say in removing it? Anyway, my plans are to add a better version without the skull and a clearer picture of the brain in the future. Semiconscious 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"As the uploader don't I have a certain say in removing it?"
{{PD-user|Semiconscious}}
3D MRI of [[User:Semiconscious|Semiconscious']] brain.
{{CopyrightedFreeUse-User|Semiconscious}}
...that look familiar?
"my plans are to add a better version without the skull and a clearer picture of the brain in the future"
Why don't you carry out those plans and then pursue deletion (if it still suits you). ¦ Reisio 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I made it free use. However I still feel it's ugly and the animation is poorly done. I haven't made a new one because the process is quite time consuming and the equipment time quite expensive. Clearly you disagree. So be it I guess. Semiconscious 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vrs-logo.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation from the VRS Website --84.175.100.5 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WB 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 54MHz 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Dice

[edit]

This Article is not longer needed. I transfused the pictures into the Category: dice Metoc

oppose, keep and revert back: an article is a much better way to present pictures, because the creator can present the pictures in a specific order and can give them a unique description. the category is overcrowded. --BLueFiSH ?! 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert, I agree with BLueFiSH.
I remember there was a talk about this (categ vs article)...but I can't regain the adresse... Is someone able to ? -- YolanC 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FlagRaisingOnIwoJima.gif

[edit]

no commercial use, see also en:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and en:Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. --BLueFiSH ?! 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, see Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Thuresson 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This pic is from a different source [2] from en wiki and it said "no usage restrict". --Fanghong 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
have you read the various discussions? in brief: though the picture is available at archives.gov, the picture is not PD and the photographer has the copyright (->70 years pma). the "no commercial use" was not 100% right, in fact it is only "fair use", therefore not possible for Commons. --BLueFiSH ?! 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RyanShecklerTrick.jpg

[edit]

I can find no evidence on the site given as the source[3] that this image is available under a free license. --Kbh3rd 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nicovelvetswarhol.jpg

[edit]

I doubt that this image from the 1960s ist released under GFDL. Neither a source nor a photographer is mentioned. It more looks like an old press-photography. The other uploads of User:Thetragicfigure look suspicious too. --Zinnmann 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un-archived. -- WB 06:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, make it Image:Badnewsbrown.jpg, Image:Bjork009.jpg, and Image:Ray Davies.jpg as well. -- WB 06:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted 15 images uploaded by this user and I'd be happy to delete the rest after 7 days if uploader can not provide a source to verify photos are freely licensed. Thuresson 13:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nicovelvetswarhol.jpg

[edit]

I doubt that this image from the 1960s ist released under GFDL. Neither a source nor a photographer is mentioned. It more looks like an old press-photography. The other uploads of User:Thetragicfigure look suspicious too. --Zinnmann 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SV101394.JPG

[edit]

My own work. Upload error--Shizhao 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 17:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ntv shiodome.jpg

[edit]

Wrong file name. correct　name is Image:NTV shiodome.jpg(already exist.)--Kentin 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

[edit]

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

Image:Bologna - duomo.jpg

[edit]

I hate Flickr. Image:Bologna - duomo.jpg was uploaded in October from Flickr, and marked as cc-by-sa-2.0. Today, I looked at the original at Flickr, and it's marked cc-by-nc-nd-2.0. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell whether the license at Flickr has changed (meaning we can keep it), or whether the uploader just made a mistake (meaning we can't keep it). User:dbenbenn 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's what we are left with, and we can't do much about it. Have you tried contacting the photographer? -- WB 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I prefer not to. Feel free to, if you wish. User:dbenbenn 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't. It's so much easier to change and remove licenses in flickr though. If I had posted my parents pic at flickr, I wouldn't have had to go through all that trouble to get them erased... Anyway, too bad, we can't do anything about it without contacting him. Is the pic really important? -- WB 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that legally, you can't revoke a license - Flickr should show a history of licenses that was at some point applied to the image, along with a short statement about why it was changed. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. I gotta say most people cannot careless about the licensing though. Well, you can when you are going further. For example, you can change from by-nc-sa to by-sa then we wouldn't care if the licensing changed. It's just that nc is important to us. Short statement would be nice though. -- WB 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have the legal right to use it under the previous license, and it's a clear software defect of Flickr that they allow restricting a license after the fact, but I think we can replace these with images from someone less finnicky about their license. Deco 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The question is though: Although we trust dbenbenn's initial uploading, but how do we have the legal right? Do we have any proof? -- WB 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even the "duomo" of Bologna, that's San Petronio. The Duomo is a different church. --Alkibiades 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zhu Da

[edit]

It is replaced by Category:Zhu Da.--Burn 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - 54MHz 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've made it a redirect to the category page; no reason to delete it. User:dbenbenn 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fjodor III.jpg

[edit]

Delete from Wikipedia Commons. This image has no source to it, and it is not an accurate image: it was not painted during his lifetime. Marcus2 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Image looks old enough (may be from old textbook/religious book). You argument about accuracy is not very good: how many medeval persons were painted at lifetime? From your point of view every icon image should be deleted from Commons, because saints were painted long after death.
Please notify uploader of original image on English Wikipedia and request source for this image before asking deletion here.
EugeneZelenko 16:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more accurate images, FYI: [4], [5], and [6] Marcus2 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, ask en:User:Irpen, the original uploader. I think we safely can assume that this picture is old enough. And please do not delete the picture from the Norwegian (bokmål) article until this is resolved. Kjetil r 17:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously old enough unless it's an imitation of older styles, and accuracy is not required for Commons. Many after-the-fact interpretations of historical figures have become quite notable in and of themselves, such as that of Jesus. Deco 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mazda6 MPS.jpg Image:Mazda6 MPS Heck.jpg Image:Mazda6 MPS Motor.jpg Image:Mazda6 MPS Interieur.jpg

[edit]

No proof for a free license, looks like copyvio. --Crux 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Oersted monument.jpg

[edit]

Replaced by much better quality equivalent image Image:Hans Christian Ørsted statue (full).jpg --Thue 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Delacorte.jpg Image:CadPic.gif

[edit]

Both from the same user, who doesn't seem to have read Commons' licensing policy:

--Fastfission 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Ziolkowska

[edit]

This biography is covered completely at wikipedia:Aleksandra Ziółkowska. It has no links here.—Theo (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DSC04371.jpg

[edit]

I accidentaly uploaded that picture instead of one I took of a Spanish church, so this one has nothing to do here

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

Category:Hsü Wei

[edit]

It should be replaced by Category:Xu Wei. --Burn 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delte - 54MHz 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted because of category not in use.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Crystal real.png

[edit]

Copyrighted image of Real Networks' old logo. See this. --WB 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted because of obvious copyvio.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Crystal pdf.png

[edit]

Copyrighted image of Adobe Reader. See here. -- WB 13:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted because of obvious copyvio.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

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

Image:Mazda CX-7.jpg

[edit]
Deleted because {{unknown}} tagged for or for more than one week.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 07:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mazda MX5 3. Generation.jpg

[edit]

same as to the Mazda pictures some lines above. no proof of license, looking also like copyvio. --BLueFiSH ?! 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because {{unknown}} tagged for or for more than one week.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 07:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

user:Gen-cosmic

[edit]

Gen-cosmic uploaded all images may copyvio. Now unknown copyright status.--Shizhao 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because {{unknown}} tagged for or for more than one week.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 07:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Alexis Bledel in dem Film Sin City.jpg

[edit]

copyvio, screenshot from the movie en:Sin City. --BLueFiSH ?! 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyvio. Thuresson 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Logo-nasa-800px.png

[edit]

From Image talk:Logo-nasa-800px.png:

This is a illegal image!!! We may use all Nasa logos except "The" Nasa logo. The NASA license says:
"This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored."
Campani 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Copyvio, Speedy delete --Denniss 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. --FML hi 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy -- WB 04:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - given that our main servers are in the US, we just cannot host pictures that are prohibited by US federal law! David.Monniaux 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Swamithoppe pathi .jpg

[edit]

English Wikipedia lists it as unfree, see en:Image:Swamithoppe pathi .jpg

Fred Chess 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Christianbinacci

[edit]

User:Christianbinacci. Not sure what it is about but it doesn't appear to be commons material. Italian speaking person needed. Fred Chess 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a registered user, article in user namespace. Speedy delete --Denniss 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kaliningrad oblast flag.png

[edit]
The Image_talk:Kaliningrad oblast flag.png says "Kaliningrad Oblast hat keine Flagge. Diese Flagge ist die Flagge der Stadt Kaliningrad. " - User:Urmas 23:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Chess 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Image:Flag of Kaliningrad.png first, please. ¦ Reisio 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, the city COA available at Image:Kgd gerb.png. Thuresson 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

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

Image:Flexity.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation --stefan (?!) 13:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Glans.jpg

[edit]

And Image:Glans penis.jpg. Ugly, useless, very next to mere vandalism. villy ♦✎ 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Pasmo.gif

[edit]

Copyrighted trademark; Copyvio. May be copied from [7] Tietew 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Rufus Shinra.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot from a CG movie FFVII: Advent Children released by Square Enix. I think it's a speedy, but just to be sure, I'm listing it here.

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

Image:Sp-palmeiras.gif

[edit]

Football club logo. --Patrick-br msg 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's 20×20 and the logo is unrecognizable and never can be considered registered. It is only to be used in tables. FML hi 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why should we keep it? There's no reason for an image, don't matter what size it is, be eligible for public domain, considering it's a derivative work of a copyrighted logo.--Gaf.arq 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low resolution is a legitimate argument for fair use. Commons does not allow fair use. Deco 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. So, a single pixel is copyrighted? Because all images of the world can be resized to a single pixel. 20×20 makes the logo unrecognizable, it's like only a green ball. FML hi 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this single pixel shows a copyrighted image it is still copyrighted. --Denniss 05:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see the image and say to me if it's recognizable. Do you know the Palmeiras team? If not, don't search on the web, only try draw the symbol on paintbrush and send to Commons. I want to see if you can be draw looking at this image. hugs, FML hi 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not fair use. -- WB 07:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misunderstanding of copyright practice. Since this image is just a green ball to you, you should have no problems using Image:Bullet-green.png as a replacement, since it also looks like a green ball at 20x20. silsor 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Dan | Talk 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted -- WB 08:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Screenshot -EditPadLite.png

[edit]

Screenshot of a program that isn't free licenced, but only for non-commercial use. Firefox 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Sea chicken.jpg

[edit]

Looks like it should have been deleted here. No source/license information. Kjetil r 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

[edit]

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

Image:Stubru rood.gif

[edit]

in logo, is not GFDL--Shizhao 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) copyrighetd indeed, I verified with the author and can be used for the Wikipedia... therefor the tag can be added: {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}[reply]

User:Joymaster stuff

[edit]

Image:WKUGdynia.UlSwietojanska72-03.jpg

[edit]

Not GFDL--Shizhao 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deductive reasoning:
Permission was apparently given to put the image on Commons.
Putting an image on Commons requires an appropriate license.
↳Permission was given to give it an appropriate license.
¦ Reisio 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- WB 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joymaster

[edit]

.....

Joymaster upload all images from [8] not GFDL--Shizhao 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all these description pages Joy says (in Polish) that he was granted permission to upload them. Ausir 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From:  	<myemail>
Subject:  	Images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/
Date:  	Wed, January 11, 2006 3:30 pm
To:  	[email protected]

A user with email address <joymaster'semail> has claimed he was given permission
to upload the following images onto http://commons.wikimedia.org/:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SkwerKosciuszki.02.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SkwerKosciuszki.01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia-Swietojanska-03.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia-Swietojanska-02.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia-Swietojanska-01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia-10lutego29a-02.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia-10lutego29-02.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WKUGdynia.UlSwietojanska72-03.jpg

It would be helpful if this permission is confirmed, otherwise
(naturally), the images may be deleted.

<myname> / <myemail>
Just sent. ¦ Reisio 20:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to Joymaster, and he's a Polish Wikipedia sysop, so I believe him :). Ausir 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I talked to Joymaster, and he definitely is allowed to use the images. / tsca ✉ 11:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept -- WB 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

www.sejm.gov.pl images, etc.

[edit]

copyvio. see [9].© Copyright by Chancellery of The Sejm, Warsaw 1999 All rights reserved. --Shizhao 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish version of the website specifically says "Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia." which means that using and copying materials from the Sejm website is allowed as long as their source is given. Only the English version of the website is inaccurate. Ausir 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ausir's comment / http://www.sejm.gov.pl/projekt.html ¦ Reisio 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I confirm the site explicitly says it is allowed, provided the source is given. / tsca ✉ 11:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Brockhaus10017.JPG

[edit]

Not GFDL, is PD?--Shizhao 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — - looks like it's probably PD, see Image:Brockhaus1000C.JPG dated 1921. ¦ Reisio 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PD -- Stahlkocher 08:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cc-it.png

[edit]

cc-it is cc-by2.0 ,not GFDL and cc-by-sa see [10]--Shizhao 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to list this image here, simply set the license to cc-by-it-2.0! David.Monniaux 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Batman and Robin - Gay underground camp take, ca. 1998.jpg

[edit]

Some people argue the characters are "copyrighted", but one does not copyright a character — one copyrights a work of art. The legal question boils down to whether drawing fan art implies making a derived work (and possibly whether this derived works infringes on trademarks or other protection).

Keep - people can draw whatever they like. ¦ Reisio 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't people often get sued for releasing "alike" characters? This seems somewhat similar to the Firefox logo question. -- WB 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a derivative work of copyrighted material. Maybe fair use as parody or satire but not free. -Nv8200p 16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All factor must be under free license on Commons.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleted -- WB 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Albert-einstein7.jpg

[edit]

I've uploaded a higher-quality version at Image:Albert Einstein Swss Patent Office clerk 1905.jpg.

Albert-einstein7.jpg isn't a very good name, but the file is used in articles on four wikipedias. [11] I see three options in this case.

  1. Delete Albert-einstein7.jpg and edit the wikipedias to link to the new image.
  2. Delete Albert-einstein7.jpg and create some sort of redirect to the new image on the commons (I'm not sure if this is possible with mediawiki- probably not).
  3. Replace Albert-einstein7.jpg with the high-quality version. This is the path of least resistance, but we are left with a poor filename.

-Fadookie 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably do something like upload it to Image:Albert Einstein Swiss Patent Office clerk 1905.jpeg, replace all the Image:Albert-einstein7.jpg's with it, then replace that one with a nice X image from Category:Redundant and Bob's your uncle. I'm not sure what the point is in converting GIF to JPEG, but the filesize is smaller and there apparently isn't any quality loss, so whatever. ¦ Reisio 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the image on all WPs with Image:Albert Einstein Swss Patent Office clerk 1905.jpg and will delete the smaller one. --Raymond de 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the idea of spelling out "Swiss" and not propogating the abbreviation "jpg" instead of the proper "jpeg", then, eh? :p ¦ Reisio 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... whooooops. Sorry, I was pretty tired when I renamed it. :[
The mediawiki folks really need to implement an image moving feature. -Fadookie 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Barred lambda.png

[edit]

Has been replaced with an SVG version at Image:Barred lambda.svg. --Zippanova 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carl Van Vechten

[edit]

Why would Image:BessieSmith.jpg be in the public domain? The page talks about donor restrictions expiring in '86, but I don't see any reference to this on the LOC page. David.Monniaux 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/079_vanv.html ¦ Reisio 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it might not be derivated and a byline is necessary. Better change commons policy, instead of deleting such pictures. -- Stahlkocher 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Vanderwoning bee5515.jpg

[edit]

Non-commercial. Comes from English Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Psilocybin..png

[edit]

This file has an incorrect name, and a file with correct name exists Image:Psilocybin.png.--端くれの錬金術師 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nido hornero.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. see[12]: "The pictures on this website can be used free of charge by individuals and non-profit organisations for strictly non-commercial use. "--Shizhao 17:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Gasprom.jpg

[edit]

This picture seems to be copyrighted and is not PD, see en:Image:Gazprom.jpg and comment at de:Bild:Gasprom.jpg --AlexF 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clear licensing, probably fair use - http://www.gazprom.com/eng/articles/article8969.shtml ¦ Reisio 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But fair use pictures are not accepted on Commons, are they? --AlexF 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/me puts forefinger to nose :) ¦ Reisio 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted -- WB 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keohane images

[edit]

This picture seems to be copyrighted and is not GPL--Shizhao 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Keohane/keohane-con1.html ¦ Reisio 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"© Copyright 2004, Regents of the University of California ". Copyvio--Shizhao 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- WB 06:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted -- WB 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Open-Xchange 0.8.1-6 WebMail en.jpg and Image:Open-Xchange 0.8.1-6 Groupware en.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot--Shizhao 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Collection of images

[edit]

The following images are all orphaned, not used to illustrate any articles, and are simply uploaded pictures of various Wikipedians who photograph their genitals, presumably for the sake of voyeurism. I have no problem with nudity, but these are the *pointless* nudity that don't illustrate any articles, and aren't even "good" images by any standard. Wikimedia is not an imagehosting service, and certainly not an adult one. Image:Vulva3.jpg Image:Vulva2.jpg Image:Sexe male penis.jpg Image:Right.jpg Image:Penis .jpg Image:Human penis flaccid.jpg Image:Human penis erect.jpg Image:Gen 21.jpg Image:Flaccid and erect human penis B&W.jpg Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg

    • (nominated by Sherurcij, from WP)
Keep They are all categorizes and/or used in articles. If you don't like them then do not look at them! --Denniss 08:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with them, I assure you I've seen a great many genitals, I'm hardly a prude. And no, none of them are used in a single article.
Keep. Why delete them? Somebody might use them in the future. Kjetil r 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who want an image of a penis, probably don't want a picture of a random internet user masturbating, they'll find a somewhat more scholarly or clear photo. The photography is horrid on these, and it isn't useful to demonstrate anything
I think the masturbation picture shows perfectly normal masturbation, a "random internet user" probably masturbates the same way as other people. The image can perfectly well be used in an article about (male) masturbation. I am more doubtful of Image:Male Erect Penis with Pre Ejaculate.jpg though. Kjetil r 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons. David.Monniaux 18:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes they are free, but they are only used for vandalism purposes. / Fred Chess 10:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've had this discussion before. We definitely need pictures that illustrate topics like masturbation, erections etc., but these images just don't fulfill that purpose. Let's face it: These pictures are never going to be used in any wikimedia project. Wikimedia Commons is not and must not become a repository for amateur porn. I even tend to think that uploading a picture of your own erect penis should count as a form of vandalism, not as a useful contribution. --Fb78 11:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They can be used any time in the same way as any other orphaned images (by the way, given the huge quantity of Wikimedia wikis, how can anyone be sure that an image is not being already used? Is there a way to find out?). Maybe I will change my mind when Commons has 20,000 images similar to these ones but, until then, I vote for keeping them --Piolinfax 21:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a wiki community believes such an image is essential to illustrate an article, I'd be worried.
To check if an image is being used, use the Check-Usage tool / Fred Chess 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that vandalism with Commons images will be an increasing problem, especially on unnoticed pages and/or Wikipedias. See for an example: [13] / Fred Chess 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping this would mean that we can upload pointless images without any purpose just because it has a OK license. -- WB 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. used vandalism --Shizhao 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a lot of this sort of pic.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A small variety of genitalia pics is useful. I don't think we should get rid of these anymore than WP should get rid of stubs. (No pun intended, penis photographers.) --Tysto 17:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5/5/0 right now. -- WB 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept - no consensus.

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

Botero pictures

[edit]

A user has uploaded a bunch of pictures of sculptures by Botero. Legal question: in Colombia, are pictures of statues exposed in a public place covered by the copyright of the sculptor? (Note: we're discussing Colombian law, not US or German law.) David.Monniaux 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no vote

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

Image:Kandinsky06.jpg

[edit]

Kandinsky died in 1944. I think that he did this work when he was in Germany, in 1913. This would mean that German copyright law applies and this painting is copyrighted. David.Monniaux 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our proposal this picture has to be deleted (creator not 70 years dead) --Historiograf 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would not apply if the country of first publication/creation of the work of art had a shorter copyright term. Under the Berne convention, you cannot claim copyright on works longer than the copyright of the country of origin. Some countries have protection only for 50 years.
Thus, I'm asking where Kandinsky did his painting. I suspect it's Germany, which would make this image a copyvio. David.Monniaux 12:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
« Under the Berne convention, you cannot claim copyright on works longer than the copyright of the country of origin. » Really? I'm afraid the rule is not as simple as that. --Teofilo 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no vote

January 12

[edit]

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

Image:Wvboddien.jpg

[edit]

A source is given but this source states that contents of that webpage may only be used with explicit permission which is obviously not given. --Mazbln 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

All images on User:Outburn/gallery

[edit]

This user uploaded a lot of pictures in the name of "Taken by myself" or Albrecht Felgner. But most were clear copyrighted materials and speedy deleted. I think we should delete all of this users contributions for we cannot be confident of this user.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had a bunch of photos of celebrities; one was a clear copyvio and other other probable ones, I deleted the lot. The user is blocked. David.Monniaux 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found on the gallery two maps that I had drawn, credited to Felgner (I've deleted them). I agree that the user's other contributions are untrustworthy. User:dbenbenn 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:AgassiBackhand.gif

[edit]

Source (english wikipedia) points to itself (commons). --Patrick-br msg 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted from en: by Jimbo Wales on September 18, 2005 with the comment "copyright complaint to me personally". See [14]. Thuresson 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Image-Flag of Chile.svg

[edit]

Redundant to Image:Flag of Chile.svg --KRATK 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Klamydia2005 05.jpg

[edit]

GPL? copyvio--Shizhao 09:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Colorado.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot of a program, is not free--Shizhao 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Psi.JPG

[edit]

Replaced by Image:Psi.svg. --w:en:User:Zippanova 04:37, 12 January 2005 (UTC)

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

Image:Db-schild.jpg

[edit]

Replaced by Image:Db-schild.svg. --w:en:User:Zippanova 05:07, 12 January 2005 (UTC)

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

Image:Burjdubai.jpg

[edit]

why PD? what is the real source? on http://www.emaar.com/terms_conditions/Index.asp there is nothing to find which sounds like "free use", only "all rights reserved" can be found. --BLueFiSH ?! 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Vinyl01122006.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. [15] not copyinfo--Shizhao 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shizhao: why are you suggesting this image for deletion; would you please contact me with information on correct image uploading procedure for this particular image? Thank you. SKIDMAR

Well, even if we can claim the photo under fair use, fair use images are not allowed to be hosted on the Commons. If the article is at English Wikipedia, we can probably host the image there. Zach (Smack Back) 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another image (same source and licensing problems) to delete --Denniss 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleted -- WB 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Vu logo.jpg and Image:Vu logo.JPG

[edit]

logo, GFDL?--Shizhao 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ch zh center arial view.jpg

[edit]

This image seems not to be PD-NASA: "Image by Reto Stöckli, NASA Earth Observatory, based on Quickbird data copyright Digitalglobe". (Quote from PD-NASA template: "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted") --Baikonur 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ch zh center arial view small file size.jpg

[edit]

This image seems not to be PD-NASA: "Image by Reto Stöckli, NASA Earth Observatory, based on Quickbird data copyright Digitalglobe". (Quote from PD-NASA template: "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted") --Baikonur 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Estadiomexico68.JPG

[edit]

GFDL? --Shizhao 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

listed as {{No source}} Bas parler voir 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chilean money

[edit]

Image:2000 Pesos - back - Chile (current money).jpg and related. I don't know the copyright status of Chilean money. David.Monniaux 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many currencies are on fair use. In case of Wikipedia, it has PD/Fair Use tag. -- WB 03:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus

January 13

[edit]

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

Not for use in Swedish Wikipedia

[edit]

The license for these photos do not comply with GFDL. Initially licensed under CC, the coyright owner changed the license in December (and removed the photos from Swedish Wikipedia). License: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the file, or any derivative work, is not used in http://sv.wikipedia.org" Thuresson 12:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too late, and we can keep the old license, the owner can't change the license of a file which is already sold (or given). YolanC 13:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that means that users who upload their own photos can not later change the license at will - it is possible to add a license, not revoke a license already given. Thuresson 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. We can go more free, but not less free. (e.g. CC to PD is OK. PD to CC is not OK) -- WB 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe / Fred Chess 13:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and revert the license change to the last free license. If someone doesn't want his pictures to be used by SV, that's just tough. User:dbenbenn 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License changed back to cc-by-sa. Thuresson 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:UC logo.jpg

[edit]

granted on 2006-01-12 for use within the Wikimedia project.--Shizhao 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Yut_Sticks.jpg

[edit]

Sorry, I've mistaken.

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

Image:Yxsz.JPG

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 06:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bushypapa.jpg

[edit]

not GFDL, may PD-US-Gov?--Shizhao 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some Image:Bushpope.jpg--Shizhao 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from the BBC. Look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_1453000/1453048.stm Airunp 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altough the picture composition is very similar, it's not the same photo. Look at the men behind Bush and the Pope, both they are stood in different postures. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 12:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right Martorell, sorry. It's not the same picture Airunp 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. In spite of it, this work isn't being owned by nobody, and no source mentioned. So it's very probably that it's going to be deleted. Isn't it?. I'm finding out now its source. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources founded, and all these with copyright notice: [16], [17]. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They aren't necessarily putting their sources though. But should be deleted. -- WB 07:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 05:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Che new1 0.jpg

[edit]

The photo of Adolf Hitler is perhaps still copyrighted. This is a derived work thereof. David.Monniaux 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be kept. I think it would be impossible to track the original photo from such a crude derivation. I'm sceptical whether this fits in an article though. / Fred Chess 15:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful to any Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WB 11:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Li Peng.jpg and Image:Zhouenlai.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. copyrights not expired--Shizhao 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know Chinese copyright law? (Maybe, as a Communist country, they didn't recognize copyright, for all I know.) David.Monniaux 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-China says 50 years after publication. en:Image:Li Peng.jpg and en:Image:Joenlai.jpg are tagged as fair use. Thuresson 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded these from Wikipedia en in good faith. They are used in the corresponding article of Wikipédia. I wish you could consider that the fair use permits the use outside the US.

Lebouc 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mozilla Firefox (alternative logo design).svg

[edit]

copyvio - explanation from image description page: "http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html says that logos cannot be modified and distributed by others. Zach (Smack Back) 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)" --BLueFiSH ?! 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Oh yes, it's exactly the same. We even rely on that fact with our policy to assume reproductions of PD works to be PD too. Relevant court decisions (for the US) are en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and en:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service - that makes it very clear that the basis of copyright is creative originality, not sweat of the brow. There are similar rulings/policies in many countries, for egxample Germany. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw: there's a (de facto) policy against having trademarked logos on the commons, no matter what the copyright status is. So... delete. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:PreludetoaKissDVD.jpg

[edit]

DVD? copyvio--Shizhao 06:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, movie poster. Thuresson 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Daniel radcliffe.jpg

[edit]

Harry Potter, copyvio--Shizhao 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, promotional photo. Thuresson 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Star wars episode three ver2.jpg

[edit]

star wars episodio III poster, copyvio--Shizhao 06:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, movie poster. Thuresson 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:220sb.PNG

[edit]
Replaced by [:Image:220sb.svg]]. --Zippanova 05:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Image:Rautiainenjaniskalaukaus.jpg

[edit]

GFDL?--Shizhao 02:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SakuraCardCaptor.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. see [18]--Shizhao 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chess players images by User:Jaffi

[edit]

Image:300px-Fritz 8.jpg Image:250px-TigranPetrosian.jpg Image:200px-Michael Adams grandmaster.jpg Image:200px-Kramnik.jpg Image:200px-Cramling.jpg Image:200px-BobbyFischer.jpg Image:200px-Beliavsky Bled 2002.jpg Image:200px-Anand-2.jpg Image:180px-VassilyIvanchuk.gif Image:180px-Timecapablanca.jpg Image:180px-Spassky.jpg

All are from English Wikipedia. Most are fair use with no source. In addition, they are thumbnails. Fred Chess 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image:200px-Beliavsky Bled 2002.jpg until w:Image:Beliavsky Bled 2002.jpg has been uploaded here. Delete the others. (I suppose that December 7, 1925 is not old enough for w:Image:Timecapablanca.jpg to be public domain?) User:dbenbenn 20:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ones dbenbenn pointed out -- WB 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All done. New image located here. -- WB 09:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not GFDL

[edit]

--Shizhao 02:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Klamydia2005.jpg

[edit]

Not GPL --Shizhao 02:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Suf logo.JPG and Image:Dsu logo.JPG

[edit]

Not GFDL, is logo--Shizhao 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kenshin.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 06:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Battousai.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:31th G8 summit-family pic.jpg

[edit]

License [19]: You are only permitted to reproduce the image in a media publication. You must not distribute or use any image for any other purpose.. Thuresson 12:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The licence is quite fuzzy and give some latitude. You must not distribute or use any image for any other purpose. : for what could be used a picture ? There is no restriction on commercial use or any kind of reuse. I personnaly contacted g8pix.com, these pictures are free (libre) for media. Wikipedia is a media. So, imho, we should keep it. --Neuceu 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, they perhaps cannot be used on a retail product or an advertisement. This is technically unfree, though I wonder why we should fund a site restricted to images suitable for advertisements and retail products... David.Monniaux 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever a "media publication" is, I doubt that would include printing the photo on T-shirts or cups. Thuresson 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pictures are in fact part of the "pool". As the G8 summits and these kinds of events can only accept a limited number of journalists, the organization accredit one of them, then the pictures are free for use by the media. I understand that the license is unclear - that's also why I uploaded only one picture -, I wanted to have this discussion. In my interpretation, the pictures are free for reuse, for parody or for printing on a t-shirt. But that's only my interpretation. I let an admin decide what is to be done with this picture. --Neuceu 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, "...only permitted to reproduce the image in a media publication" can not be interpreted to mean printing on a T-shirt? Thuresson 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stale debate, no consensus

January 14

[edit]

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

Image:Inflation.jpg

[edit]

Who is the author who could be dead for 70 years? LoC isn't automatically PD; the page Inflation can also be deleted then --Crux 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:KlausMannAls12Jaehriger.jpg

[edit]

Who is the author who could be dead for 70 years? the page Klaus Mann can also be deleted then --Crux 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep if author is anonymous, image is becoming PD 70 years after first publication. This is in my view the case here. Besednjak 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we don't know the author doesn't mean that he is anonymous. --Crux 14:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Historiograf 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keeped--Shizhao 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Domprobst-Bernhard-Lichtenberg.jpg

[edit]

no proof for license; the page Bernhard Lichtenberg can also be deleted --Crux 13:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Lichtenberg niet verwijderen - de pagina Bernhard Lichtenberg bevat immers nog een andere afbeelding. Besednjak 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Crux 14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Agatha Christie plaque, Torre Abbey.jpg

[edit]

Isn't the plaque a copyrighted design with a copyrighted photo? Dunno about British law. David.Monniaux 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the plaque itself will be extremely unlikely to be enforcibly copyrighted under British law - for something in the open designed to be viewed (and photographed) by the public the copyright would have to be asserted AIUI. The only question is the photo, given whne Agatha Christie lived (15 September 1890 – 12 January 1976) it is possible that the photo will be PD-old. Given the use of the photograph then if any thought has gone into it, I suspect the photo would be chosen as a public domain. If you know who erected the plaque, then I'd contact them to be absolutely certain (although if it is a society then they may not even know). In summary, I believe that this file is a photograph of an object that is almost certainly public domain, and thus fine for the commons. IANAL. Thryduulf 03:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nautical Signal Flags

[edit]

Me again with a whole bunch of images. All the flags in this article except four are redundant (replaced by SVGs). I have orphaned them in the three major Wikipedias where they were used, which I think is everywhere. To be specific, I wish to delete the following 36 images as redundant:

Image:MKS a.PNG, Image:MKS b.PNG, Image:MKS c.PNG, Image:MKS d.PNG, Image:MKS e.PNG, Image:MKS f.PNG, Image:MKS g.PNG, Image:MKS h.PNG, Image:MKS i.PNG, Image:MKS j.PNG, Image:MKS k.PNG, Image:MKS l.PNG, Image:MKS m.PNG, Image:MKS n.PNG, Image:MKS o.PNG, Image:MKS p.PNG, Image:MKS q.PNG, Image:MKS r.PNG, Image:MKS s.PNG, Image:MKS t.PNG, Image:MKS u.PNG, Image:MKS v.PNG, Image:MKS w.PNG, Image:MKS x.PNG, Image:MKS y.PNG, Image:MKS z.PNG, Image:1Unaone.png, Image:2Bissotwo.png, Image:3Terrathree.png, Image:4Kartefour.png, Image:5Pantafive.png, Image:6Soxisix.png, Image:7Setteseven.png, Image:8Oktoeight.png, Image:9Novenine.png, Image:0Nadazero.png

The remaining four in the article will come up for deletion later after the SVGs are made. Thanks. Deco 03:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These popped up again in a Spanish article, a Czech article, and a German portal. I re-orphaned them all. Should be good for deletion, only occurring on project pages now. Deco 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Christians.svg

[edit]

The image has been renamed to Image:Christian Flag.svg due to a request (see the image page for details). I have checked the wikis and have found that the image was used in the en and nl wikis. These links have been fixed. Thanks, Hoshie 07:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be "flag", not "Flag", dunno, don't care. ¦ Reisio 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Shellywinters.JPG

[edit]

copyvio. see en:Image:Shellywinters.JPG --Shizhao 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But en:Image:Shellywinters.JPG is tagged as "fair use" so by which right do you claim copyright under GFDL? Thuresson 20:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFire, your opinion is unbased. :-)
  • We should have a look at the US Copyright Office to see if the copyright for this film has been renewed. Unfortunately, they shut the systems down for the weekend. David.Monniaux 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (second vote): Well I might have chosen the wrong license. But I did get it from Wikipedia...and the source link is mentioned. DragonFire1024 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is tagged as fair use (read the article) on en then the only license you can apply to it is fair use. Commons does not accept fair use images. Delete Thryduulf 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It is copyvio unless it is released under GFDL or in public domain. Adnghiem501 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't jump to conclusions. It is in fact possible this photo is in the public domain, and we have to check the US Copyright Office (online) to check. David.Monniaux 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I understand that, however, if it is on the Wiki, I would expect that it would be cought and deleted if it is NOT able to be used. Its the first picture in her biography on the Wikipedia. You guys are good about deleteing the bad ones on here. I would not have uploaded it at all if I had not gotton it from Wikipedia. I know before I uploaded pictures not allowed but that was before I knew about liscensing. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
  • Delete. Don't be ridiculous, of course it's copyrighted. Practically every image produced for commercial purposes in the 20th century is. The copyright extension act is retroactive, as long as the film had a copyright notice on it, and I'm entirely confident it did. Deco 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the uploader: when you take files from the wikis and upload them to the commons, do not put a blind trust in the license you see. If you think it is bizarre (see Commons:Copyright violations), exercise caution. David.Monniaux 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked "Cry Of The City" on the U.S. Copyright Office. I could not find anything that matches a year of 1948...maybe i am searching wrong? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

In 1981/82 there is a record of copyright transfer from Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation to T C F Intermediate Company, Inc. for The Abductors & 3942 other titles, including apparently Cry of the City. If I understand it correctly, copyright was renewed in 1976.
I'd prefer if somebody who understands the arcane workings of the US Copyright office cared to check. David.Monniaux 08:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 06:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:AHWatercolor1.jpg

[edit]

I was errared - license is not good Maksim 13:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jezero Billy.jpg

[edit]

I was errared - license is not good Maksim 14:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Honecker.jpg

[edit]

Phony license, Erich Honnecker certainly never visited the US or any NASA facility. Thuresson 09:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Athelstan.gif

[edit]

I was errared - license is not good Maksim 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Abtei_Marienstatt_sw_Klostergarten.jpg

[edit]

Image has been renamed to Image:Abtei_Marienstatt_so_Klostergarten.jpg. There are no more links to this picture. Schnatz 15:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mehnertjpg.jpg

[edit]

Copy from copyright protected page, no hints concerning author's permission. -- RainerBi 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screenshots by User:Www.zunami.at

[edit]

Reason: a) Article was deleted from de - not used anymore, b) license seems to be wrong. --Avatar 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. (because it was Windows screenshot mainly) -- WB 08:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:EUFlag descript.gif

[edit]

this picture is identical to Image:EU Flag specification.svg, but has a very low resolution. --Tobias Schmidbauer 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logos of Danish political youth organisations uploaded by User:Qupp

[edit]

Three of these images have been posted already (in two posts), but since all of this user's images are of the same nature, I'm listing them all them here.

These images are all copyrighted logos of the youth wings of a number of Danish politicial parties. Definitely not free. Besides, two of the logos are plain wrong. The one listed for Radikal Ungdom is in fact a combination of the logos of the Conservative Youth and the RU. The logo for Socialistisk Ungdomsfront (SUF) is just plain wrong, the correct logo is an image of a fist. If these images had been uploaded as fair use images in Wikipedia, I'd have no problem, but they are not free images and should definitely not be on Commons.

I'm a member of Venstres Ungdom (VU) and I hereby attest that the VU logo is copyrighted and its use on Commons is a copyright violation. If you need more information please contact en:User:Valentinian, since I only rarely access this account. --Valentinian 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- WB 08:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

[edit]

[20] says it's made 1930, so I have doubt it's PD; No proof that the author is dead for 70 years; BTW "Ullstein Verlag" already forced us to delete a picture on de-Wikipedia which had a wrong license --Crux 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an anonymous work (no photographer's name is shown), then its copyrighted expired in 2000 if made in Germany. If made in the US, it might be in the public domain due to non renewal of copyright. Thus, we should try to get the location where it was made. David.Monniaux 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote of [21]: "Max Planck und Albert Einstein trafen sich am 17. Juni 1930 in Berlin im Rahmen der "World Power Conference";" so it's made in Berlin. And just because Thomas7 didn't know the author, it doesn't mean that he's anonymous. Sorry, but under these circumstances it must be deleted. --Crux 14:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M. Monniaux should not argue with German law if he is not able to understand German. Crux is right. The fact that a specific copy/reproduction doesn't mention the creator makes it not an anonymous work. You have to take in account that for pictures created before 1995 July 1 the old copyright law is still relevant. --Historiograf 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the question was determining where the photo was taken. David.Monniaux 06:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stale debate; no consensus

January 15

[edit]

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

Image:01141.jpg

[edit]

This file is a copyright violation. --KaurJmeb 16:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete.--Shizhao 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:01101.jpg

[edit]

this picture is Copyright,I have been confirm with the user who upload.此圖為版權所有，已向上傳者確認，請刪除。 --KaurJmeb 11:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Verda Stelo en pravajn proporciojn.png

[edit]

Redundant to Image:Flag of Esperanto.svg, not used in any Wiki. —Gabbe 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Esperanta flago.png

[edit]

Redundant to Image:Flag of Esperanto.svg, not used in any Wiki. —Gabbe 14:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Microsoft Sidewinder Strategic Commander Unpacked.jpg

[edit]

No license info, source is a Chinese website. --Pmsyyz 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. (wrong notes while deleting though. the reason was "no info" not "no source".) -- WB 08:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:EdgarFaure.jpg

[edit]

I don't see how it being an "official picture" of a former French Prime Minister helps us conclude it's in the public domain. (This is a very complex legal topic.) David.Monniaux 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Image:Beregovoy.jpg and some other images from Category:French Official Publication? --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are probable copyright violations. One reason is that, often, official photos are not done by government services, but by well-known, private photographers.
I'm going to email the services of the Prime Minister and see. David.Monniaux 09:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stale debate; no consensus

January 16

[edit]

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

Image:StadtCB1995.jpg

[edit]

Image:StadtCB1987.jpg

[edit]

Image:StadtCB1985.jpg

[edit]

Image:StadtCB1982.jpg

[edit]

Image:StadtCB1971.jpg

[edit]

Image:StadtCB1989.jpg

[edit]
  • All these images are copyvio of maps. They are abusively tagged GFDL. So unless the uploader proves its ownership on the copyrights of the maps, they should be deleted. --Neuceu 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, my english is not very good, so I write now in German - i hope this is OK ;-). Alle diese Karten sind GFDL! Genehmigung habe ich erhalten! Cottbus 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Translation: "All these maps are GFDL! I received permission!" Cottbus, if the copyright owner explicitly licensed these maps under the GFDL, we need their original statement in writing saying that. If you only have permission to use them on Wikipedia, that isn't good enough. (Übersetzung von Google Translate: Cottbus, wenn der copyrightinhaber ausdrücklich diese Diagramme unter dem GFDL genehmigte, benötigen wir ihre ursprüngliche Aussage im Schreibenssaying das. Wenn Sie nur Erlaubnis haben, sie auf Wikipedia zu benutzen, ist das nicht genug gut.) Deco 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jeff Waynes The War Of The Worlds-front.jpg

[edit]

Albom cover, copyvio--Shizhao 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SGI Octane 2.png

[edit]

Tagged with {{Deletionrequest}} by User:Afrank99 in March, but apparently never listed here. It's a misnamed duplicate of Image:SGI_O2.jpg in the wrong format (PNG instead of JPG). --grmwnr 02:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Simple crossed circle.ant.png et al

[edit]

Image:Simple_crossed_circle.ant.png Image:Crossed_circle.ant.png Image:Celtic-style_crossed_circle.ant.png Image:Broken_crossed_circle.ant.png Image:Cross_and_disc.ant.png Image:Eight-spoked_wheel.ant.png

All replaced with SVGs (change .ant.png to .svg in the filename). Orphaned using [22]. silsor 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chalcone.png

[edit]

January 17

[edit]

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

software screenshot

[edit]

can I edit these so that only graphs are visible, are than they gonna be good?

Not PD--Shizhao 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to upload new images without software background, but I couldn't - old image is being shown instead of the new one. What am I doing wrong?Lakinekaki 07:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I found the answer! I did not refresh the page!!![reply]

Looks good to me now - delete offending versions only, please. @Lakinekaki: please remember to put images on gallery pages and/or into categories on the commons, so they can be found and used by others. I'll put them into Category:Chaos Theory. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have sysop privileges, and someone else has to delete old versions. Lakinekaki 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done -- WB 09:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

software screenshot

[edit]

and Category:CDex

not PD--Shizhao 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Belarus football federation.gif

[edit]

logo, Not PD. see en:Image:Belarus football federation.gif--Shizhao 02:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Irob0t home page.JPG

[edit]

Web screenshot, Not PD--Shizhao 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bayerlogo.gif

[edit]

logo, Not GFDL. see en:Image:Bayerlogo.gif--Shizhao 07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- WB 08:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Evangelion.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:UK 1 scellino 1935.JPG

[edit]

Wrong filename, re-loaded with the correct name Image:UK 1 scellino 1955.JPG. --Paginazero 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Revilo p oliver.jpg

[edit]

cc-by-sa2.5? or PD?--Shizhao 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I represent the Oliver estate. The release and licensing are appropriate and as intended. Feel free to write to revilo-oliver.com if you'd like to confirm this. -- Flawlesslogic 18 Jan 2006

Invalid licensing informaition. Marked {{No source}} Bas parler voir 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
closed

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

Images of Nazi leaders

[edit]

Image:Foto Ernst Kaltenbrunner.jpg, Image:Wilhelm Franz Canaris.jpg, Image:Himmler-podium.png.

Claim of PD. Legal opinions? David.Monniaux 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At en:Image:Wilhelmcanaris.jpg, there's info suggesting Image:Wilhelm Franz Canaris.jpg is not PD. ¦ Reisio 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Canaris as {{Copyvio}}. Noted other two images {{No source}}.
closed

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

Image:FA Clubs Map.png

[edit]

Contains the logo of the "FA Premier League", which is not Public Domain as far as I know. --Nic 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed logo, not too hard? ed g2s • talk 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But who create the map? Doesn't seem likely that the uploader did. So probably it is copyrighted to someone else. We have no evidence it's been licensed for free use in any way. So, delete. pfctdayelise 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image was modified on 19 January. Belongs to person who modified it. The quality is poor enough that I don't believe it risks any kind of copyright infringement. Marked with a {{ConvertToSVG}}. Avoid copyright paranoia. Bas parler voir 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
closed.

January 18

[edit]

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

Image:0waldo.jeffq.jpg

[edit]

Caricature of non-famous person with no permission by caricatured person. 84.110.62.100 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission to draw a caricature of someone. ¦ Reisio 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with my drawing a picture of JeffQ for GOD'z sake? Keep it, I did it for fun! 24.214.176.87 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. From Commons:Criteria for inclusion: "The central aim of the commons is to be a media database for the diverse Wikimedia projects. Thus, media on the commons should be (potentially) useful to some such project". Furthermore, 0waldo has recently been blocked by JeffQ on WikiQuote and this can be interpreted as some kind of revenge, 0waldo may be a problem user who has been involved in vote fraud; see q:User talk:0waldo for details. Thuresson 20:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote fraud; that's a forkink haha! vote fraud? must be a federal election or something like that.

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

Image:StPaulsCathedralBombing.jpg

[edit]

Another case of people assuming anything on a US government site is PD. It was taken by Herbert Mason for the Daily Mail in London; see notes on picture page. Justinc 11:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility copyright has now expired anyway I suppose. Justinc 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66 years. Where does that fall? -- WB 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70 years after death of author, so no chance for at least 4 years. Justinc 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Featured article star.png

[edit]

some Image:Cscr-featured.png--Shizhao 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Male pubic hair small.JPG

[edit]

some Image:Male pubic hair.JPG--Shizhao 08:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the purpose of this photo is, but I see nothing terribly wrong with it.Blinutne

It's uploaded twice. The small version can be deleted. --Nic 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:GeorgeWBush Signature.png

[edit]

(see also Category:Signatures)

I'm not a licensing expert, so I hope someone can answer with certainty, but it doesn't strike me as correct that any person's signature is public domain, even if they use it in the course of U.S. government work. -- Netoholic @ 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sure it is. Adnghiem501 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bush makes his signature as part of his official duties as an employee of the US federal government, so it's definitely PD. User:dbenbenn 05:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above. Downloaded from a .gov site. (This info has been added to the page)
Keep To me it seems morally OK, and many others' signatures are here without question. I am unaware of the legality--83.105.37.24 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that from a copyright point of view, it is in the public domain; however, there are very probably very strong restrictions against using this signature in works in a manner that could imply endorsement by Mr Bush (false signature, impersonation etc.). David.Monniaux 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- WB 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Washington.svg

[edit]

Not an accurate depiction of the flag. Image:Washington state flag.png is more accurate --Nv8200p 02:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WikiProject Flags is attempting to make a complete collection of high-quality SVG flags. Some of the flags, like this one, are low quality. But eventually it will be improved. User:dbenbenn 05:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime we are providing a hokey looking, inaccurate image. Not much for credibility -Nv8200p 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could take the PNG and embed it into the SVG, thus crushing your complaint, but it'd be a waste of time. ¦ Reisio 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dbenbenn. —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add {{Ifc}} with specific explanation. Deco 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denelson's fixed this one, too. ¦ Reisio 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept -- WB 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Sf logo wikimedia.gif

[edit]

some Image:Robi ghost.gif--Shizhao 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Amy Proctor.JPG and Image:Amy proctor2.JPG

[edit]

I don't see why she is relevant for Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project. --Head 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that matters as long as it's licensed correctly in Wikimedia Commons. -- WB 03:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Mrs Proctor and she never licensed those photos. David.Monniaux 16:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Penelope-cruz-1-.jpg

[edit]

copyvio, fair use, not GFDL, see en:Image:Penelope-cruz-1-.jpg--Shizhao 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- WB 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Belarus football federation.gif

[edit]

logo, not PD. see en:Image:Belarus football federation.gif--Shizhao 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

governor.state.tx.us images

[edit]

Images are not Public Domain as asserted. The site policy of the website referenced says there is only noncommercial permission --Nv8200p 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/policy/ - I collapsed these, hence screwing up Nv8200p's grammar. :p ¦ Reisio 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Seal

[edit]

Images are not Public Domain as asserted. Per http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/seal.shtml "Private use of the state seal, including the state arms and reverse of the state seal, is regulated by law. The state seal may be used for commercial purposes only if a license is obtained from the secretary of state and royalties are paid to the state."

Use of the images on the U.S. Mission to Germany web site or anywhere else does not make it public domain. --Nv8200p 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seal Houston Texas.png

[edit]

Permission to use on Wikipedia is not permission to release under GFDL. This is a copyrighted seal --Nv8200p 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Broly Super Saiyan-000.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ttn try copy.jpg

[edit]

logo, can PD?--Shizhao 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:NCHSAerial.jpg

[edit]

GFDL? copyvio --Shizhao 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No copyrights info on the source either. Fall back to All Rights Reserved. I shall delete it soon. -- WB 07:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted -- WB 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Indiana.svg

[edit]

Not an accurate depiction of the flag. Image:Indiana state flag.png is more accurate (Although I think the proportions are wrong) --Nv8200p 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see above. User:dbenbenn 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above -Nv8200p 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dbenbenn. —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add {{Ifc}} with specific explanation. Deco 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with improvements I made. Denelson83 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- WB 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Mississippi.svg

[edit]

Not an accurate depiction of the flag. Image:Mississippi state flag.png is more accurate --Nv8200p 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see above. User:dbenbenn 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dbenbenn. —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mississippi flag does have a white border around the Battle Flag since the early 1990's. Zach (Smack Back) 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then delete the inaccuate .png version or possibly change the title of the image to the date when it was introduced to reduce confusion. Maybe Image:Mississippi state flag of 1894.png.
Keep and add {{Ifc}} with specific explanation. Deco 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what is wrong? It's just slightly different to the depiction on FOTW --Kookaburra 14:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, let's find what Mississippi law has as an official description. --Pmsyyz 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept -- WB 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:BT-KISSES.jpg

[edit]

Based on the user's flickr profile, it seems unlikely this is actually his work. ed g2s • talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mafalda.JPG

[edit]

is cover, not PD --Shizhao 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 3D image of a book. Not the reproduction of a cover. This was object of discusson about this image: Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg and people agreed with that. Manuel Anastácio 12:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives03#April 15. Manuel Anastácio 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's a false assumption. Taking a picture of a three-dimensional object does not void the copyright held by the object's creator. It only creates an additional copyright for the photographer. You still need the approval of the cover creator. Such an image would be deleted on German wikipedia (the policy on that changed already a while ago.)--Fb78 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fb78. -- WB 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I quit. But If it's like that, I think that We need to delete, also, Image:Goofy (Pateta) on top of my TV.jpg and others like that. By the same argument Taking a picture of a three-dimensional object does not void the copyright held by the object's creator. I don't see the diference between a book and a doll, because they are 3D objects with a copyright. Manuel Anastácio 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And delete, also, all the photos with dressed people (some clothes have copyright too, or have copyrighted drawings) or with tattooings too. Manuel Anastácio 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, paranoia is up this week ;-). Not everyone will read your comment as a funny one. --Patrick-br msg 12:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I Know that... Manuel Anastácio 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inconclusive

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

Image:Vaakuna Inkeri.png

[edit]

I uploaded this coat of arms by mistake. I do not know its licence. --Hautala 12:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuva:Vaakuna_Inkeri.gif suggests it is PD. I don't speak the language, though. ¦ Reisio 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the situation in Finland but normally coats of arms of public institutions are not copyrighted - instead, the "use" of it is limited by law. Besednjak 13:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ingria is not in Finland but in the area around St. Petersburg, Russia. There is a black-and-white PD version of this COA at sv:Bild:Ingermanlands vapen under den svenska tiden.png. Thuresson 20:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
Marked {{No source}} Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:1916 Srbija.jpg

[edit]

GPL?--Shizhao 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion
Marked {{No source}} Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Asterix and Obelix.jpg

[edit]

Image:Figuren_aus_Asterix.jpg

[edit]

Image:Parc Astérix Plailly France.jpg

[edit]

copied from the image discussion page by aka 07:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC):[reply]

In the conditions of sale, in relation to the tickets for the Parc Astérix, it is written: "Le Client n’acquiert aucun droit de propriété ou d’usage et ne pourra utiliser les dénominations, signes, emblèmes, logos, personnages ressortant de l’univers de la bande dessinée d’Astérix le Gaulois, marques, droit d’auteur et autres signes ou autres droits de propriété littéraire, artistique ou industrielle..."

Photos taken in Parc Astérix are not free. They cannot be given commercial use, for instance. I believe this picture is not legal.--Lampiao3 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request an image deletion, to get an broader audiance for this topic. I don't think many people watch this page. There are two more of these Pictures in Category:Asterix. In case you speak french (I don't) you could ask the park for permission for the three pictures. --80.137.29.241 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete also everything in Category:Asterix. These pictures reproduce copyrighted material and were taken on private grounds. Copyright law is not on our side here. The proper person to ask is not only Parc Astérix (who holds the copyright to the statues), but also Alberto Uderzo/René Goscinny, since they hold the copyright to the figures themselves. Given how they reacted in other cases (lawsuits), the chance of a permission to put it under a free license equals zero. --Fb78 13:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the other two pictures. I vote for delete as I don't want to have any problems with someone regarding a few simple pictures. --Boris23 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pose questionmarks at the validity of the EULA of tickets for Asterixland. If you make pictures yourself, and you have permission of the people in the pic, you can do whatever the hell yhou want with it, even sell it, publish it, or give it away for free. This seems the same as not being able to publish a pic because the Atomium happens to be in the background: total BS. Zanaq 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. You can't "do whatever the hell yhou want with it". If you take a picture of a copyrighted item, and you publish it, you infringe the rights of the item's creator. It's as simple as that, no matter what the EULA says. --Fb78 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP. We need to get advice from Soufron or Villy on this. My understanding:

  • in general, owners of property have no right to restrict distribution of photos from this property, unless perhaps it causes them a special harm;
  • on the other hand, they may hold rights as designers of some architectural or sculptural works. David.Monniaux 13:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You look at it the wrong way.
1. The creators of Asterix hold a copyright to Asterix as a drawing.
2. The creators of the sculptures have created a work which may be a derivative work (copyrighted) or not. In both cases, they needed permission from the creators of Asterix. [23]
3. The person who took the picture may or may not have created a derivative work - in any case, he has taken a picture of copyrighted items, which requires permission from the creators. (There is one exception to this rule in some countrys: If the statues are permanently installed in a public place - not on private grounds! - the pictures may be distributed without permission. NB: This exception doesn't exist in France, see previous discussions on French contemporary architecture.) --Fb78 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Historiograf 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this is exactly what I was saying. They hold rights as designers of sculptures (but not as their owners). By the way, we might get an exemption for works installed in a public place this spring, depending on how it goes in Parliament. David.Monniaux 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds nice, keep us up to date. But as you say, it doesn't matter in this case. I understand the pictures were taken in an amusement park, not in a public place. --Fb78 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Fb78. They were taken on private ground. --Boris23 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
In accordance with vote, marked {{Copyvio}} Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

[edit]

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

Image:Palmeiras.gif

[edit]

Football club logo. --Patrick-br msg 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:American samoa flag large.png

[edit]

Redundant of Image:Flag of American Samoa.svg Maksim 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roma - Basilica di San Paolo fuori le mura - pianta.JPG

[edit]

Quite obviously taken from a tourist guide or something similar. No source given. --Fb78 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) - I've notified the uploader, but he refuses to respond and removed the deletion tag sans discussion. --Fb78 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ponta-negra-strand-stille.jpg

[edit]

No source, no license. --Patrick-br msg 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Evozapatero.jpg

[edit]

The link pointed as source [24] shows an error message: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found." --Patrick-br msg 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Eduardo Rodriguez.jpg

[edit]
Incomplete license since July 8, 2005. --Patrick-br msg 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

[edit]

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

Image:Heilbronn Robert-Mayer-Sternwarte.jpg

[edit]

copyvio --Kjunix 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Image-Thunderbird 1.0.7.png

[edit]

Misupload, is suposed to be Image:Thunderbird 1.0.7.png --Romeo Bravo 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETED because of uploader's request.－Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:10201.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I could make out of the info on the page, it's not copyvio, but it is noncommercial and noderivs and has strict usage guidelines, which is just as good. ¦ Reisio 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:1M3.jpg

[edit]

Movie photo. Copyvio--Shizhao 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:4-07.jpg

[edit]

may copyvio --Shizhao 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from atourfeet.com

[edit]

copyvio --Shizhao 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:150px-Giuseppe parini.jpg

[edit]

Image:150px-Giuseppe parini.jpg. Redundant. (A properly named and higher quality version is already on Commons.) Deco 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:180px-ZAPPION.jpg

[edit]

Image:180px-ZAPPION.jpg. This came from en:Image:ZAPPION.jpg, which was deleted weeks ago. Deco 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:180px-Clifton Williams at console during Gemini-Titan 3 flight.jpg

[edit]

Image:180px-Clifton Williams at console during Gemini-Titan 3 flight.jpg. Redundant thumbnail of Image:Clifton WilliamsS65-18063.jpg. Deco 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kings Quest 2 AGDI.png

[edit]

Image:Kings Quest 2 AGDI.png Propably copyvio, see [25] --Eldred 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done Rama 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

"my inspiration"

[edit]

I think it's an ad for a German hairdresser. --pfctdayelise 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SeehundeTroika.jpg

[edit]

There is no source information on the German Wikipedia to support that this image is public domain --Nv8200p 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like de:Benutzer:Gonagal took the picture himself and put it into the public domain. The (former) timestamp sure looks like an amateur picture. I'm always happy if a user puts his own pics into PD, as this makes it easier to deal with, than GFDL or even CC. --h-stt 13:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
marked {{PD-user}} Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

[edit]

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

Image:Pygoscelis adeliae 003.jpg

[edit]

redundant to Image:Adelie-Pinguin.jpg Maksim 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Taiwan.svg

[edit]
  • Rename to "Image:1996 Proposed Flag of Taiwan.svg": The term "flag of Taiwan" refers most commonly to the Flag of the Republic of China and not the Proposed flag of Taiwan initiated in 1996 "New Name, New Flag, New Anthem" campaign. "Flag of Taiwan" is an inappropriate title for this image becuase 1) it will be confused with Image:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, which is the overwhelmingly common reference for "flag of Taiwan" and 2) there is no consensus in the Taiwan independence movement on a new flag for Taiwan so to call this flag the flag of Taiwan would be POV against other proposed designs. --Jiang 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jiang, please upload the image with the name you prefer. Thuresson 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following what Commons talk:WikiProject Flags#Naming conventions II has so far, you should probably aim for something like Image:Flag of Taiwan proposed 1996.svg. ¦ Reisio 22:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
new image uploaded at Image:Flag of Taiwan proposed 1996.svg--Jiang 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:241002.jpg

[edit]

Movie poster, so it's only fair use. --Matt314 11:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fair use from en:Image:241002.jpg. Thuresson 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Time-The King.jpg

[edit]

Time cover. copyvio, not cc-by-sa--Shizhao 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fair use. Thuresson 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Madonna Popart2.jpg

[edit]

This really looks like it is a scan of the cover art of Madonna's American Life album, played-with in Photoshop. Not sure whether this needs to be deleted, or not. Opinions? / tsca ✉ 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader claims "Model is a album cover (Madonna "American Life")". Thuresson 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Penis

[edit]

Image:Male_Erect_Penis_with_Pre_Ejaculate.jpg Image:Right.jpg Image:Gen_21.jpg Image:Masturbation.jpg Image:Masturbation1a.jpg Image:Human_penis_flaccid.jpg Image:Human_penis_erect.jpg Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis_B&W.jpg Image:Penis_.jpg Image:Circpn.jpg Image:Uncircpn.jpg Image:CondomUse.jpg Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg Image:ErectHumanPenis.jpg Image:Externalanatomyofhumanpenis.jpg Image:Penis_flaccid_erection.jpg Image:Penis_optimized.jpg Image:404px-Glans_penis.jpg Image:Forhud.jpg Image:Frenulumpiercing.jpg Image:MaleGenitalia.jpg Image:Masturbation1a.jpg Image:Pearly-penile-papules-glans.jpg Image:Penis_glans_foreskin.jpg Image:Penis syphilis.png Image:Prepucio.jpg Image:Sexe male penis.jpg Image:Smegma Penis01.jpg Image:Smegma Penis02.jpg Image:Testicles.jpg Image:Penis syphilis.png

Image:20030520015715!Clitoris.jpg Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker-purp-temp.jpg Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg Image:Clitoris.jpeg Image:Flushvul_zh-tw_label.gif Image:Flushvul.gif Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg Image:HumanVulva-PolishText-PhiloVivero.png Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_Klit_vorhaut.jpg Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_aeussere.jpg Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_innere.jpg Image:VaginalOpening.jpg Image:Vulva.gif Image:Vulva1.jpg Image:Vulva2.jpg Image:Vulva2beschr.jpg Image:Vulva3.jpg Image:Vulvabigopen.jpg Image:Vulvabigopen2.JPG

Absolut untragbare Bilder. Wikipedia ist keine öffentliche Seite um private Bildaufnahmen von Exibitionisten zu veröffenltichen! Diese Bilder haben nichts mit der Erklärung zu tun und sind rechtlich gesehen gegen die guten Sitten. Weiters verstoßen diese Bilder gegen die Jugendschutzbestimmugnen und müssen daher entfernt werden. Dr. Recher

Dear Dr. Recher, please take into account that English is the lingua franca on Wikimedia Commons, since most people here don't speak German. Also, you will have to give us better arguments than "gute Sitten" (morality) to convince us. Also, you'll have to name the country whose law is, in your opinion, supposed to be applicable to Wikimedia Commons. --Fb78 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for obvious reasons. ¦ Reisio 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Several of these have questionable sources. For Image:20030520015715!Clitoris.jpg the only origin I found was a blocked user on enwiki. The image:vulva.gif comes from http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/vulva.html alt.sex FAQ, is that really PD? Image:Clitoris.jpeg is apparently a porn image and still has no source other than "google".
Response there are some PD photos at [26], so we can try and get a graphic from the NIH and maybe delete image:vulva.gif to be safe. I checked alt.sex FAQ and there is no copyright information posted. Zach (Smack Back) 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment (cont'd) anything uploaded by User:Pictureman (Image:Vulvabigopen2.JPG Image:Vulvabigopen.jpg Image:Breasts4a.jpg Image:Breasts4.jpg image:Breasts.jpg Image:Breasts1.jpg Image:Breasts2.jpg Image:Breasts3.jpg Image:Breasts3a.jpg image:Vulva1.jpg image:Vulva2.jpg [[:image:Vulva3.jpg) is suspicious, I presume the person to be underaged. An M.D. could probably verify this.
comment (cont'd) Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker-purp-temp.jpg has a reliable source and license so keep that one. So in essense they should perhaps be checked individually. / Fred Chess 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This pictures are breaking laws in Austria and Germany because of the bill called "Gegen die guten Sitten" which means, that no pictures of errected penises or pictures, which show sexual practices in public. also the "Jugendschutzgesetz" (law for the protection of the youth) illustrates, that those pictures have to be protected, so that underage persons are not able to view them.

The most of this pictures are not demonstrating anything usefull, the remaining could be replaced with drawings and censored pictures.

Best regards Dr. Recher

  • Keep. I don't give a damn about laws in Austria and Germany; these photos are hosted in the United States. Fred Chess commented that the model in some of these photos might be underage. I think that doesn't matter for pictures where the model can't be identified. (If any of the photos have questionable sources, that's a different issue. I admit I haven't looked through all of them.) User:dbenbenn 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give you your next headline: "Wikipedia hosts child pornography". / Fred Chess 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, of course we can't host child pornograpy, because it's illegal in the United States. But according to w:Child pornography#United States, "Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act ... as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals. ... A court case in 1999 determined that mere nudity involving minors does not come under the federal definition of child porn." I don't think any of the images under discussion here are child pornography according to that definition. User:dbenbenn 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the legitimate (copyright-wise) ones - wikipedia is not for protecting minors. wikipedia is not censored. This applies, by extension, to all wikimedia projects. pfctdayelise 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also have to care about the laws in Austria and Germany, because the german version of Wikipedia also link to this pages. If the german page would be unlinked, then it would only be a problem with the underage persons. This have to be cleared, Wikipedia can not be a picture-file-sharing area for perverse persons!!! DELETE IT 80.121.47.145 13:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : these images are clearly not of a pornographic nature, but suitable for educational purpose. Pornographic images are quite different, as anyone who cares to visit a pornographic site can witness. Since I very much doubt that any country has laws against education via photographs of a medical nature, I think that we are quite safe in keeping these. Rama 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In this case you can sexual intercourse or pictures of nude children also as medical nature.

A picture of an errected penis is no normal photo, its more likely to show sexual practice. I think only persons, who are a little bit confused in sexual thinkings defend this pictures! 80.121.2.166 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Your attempt to slander the well-meaning contributors who oppose this deletion for explicit reasons that you do not even attempt to counter is not encouraging. Even if they were sexually explicit rather than informative, we're obviously not exploiting anybody if the pictures were submitted by the people that they are pictures of, and we have no reason to believe any of these pictures are of minors, at least enough reason to be legally liable for their distribution in any country. If you can provide probable justification for your claims that these images are of minors, we would probably remove them - till then, please try to keep your discussion at a rational level. Deco 05:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No problem. FML hi 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just aviid using them as Featured Picture Bas parler voir 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Gaf.arq 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

Kept per vote Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Watto-Zanaq.png

[edit]

Actually I deleted this picture once before. but the uploader claims this is not a cipyvio and we had some discuss on my talk page. AFAIK, this character is copyrighted and reproduction and distribution of copyrighted character needs copyright holder's consent. Thus I think this is copyvio. How do you think? －Ananda (阿難陀) ๛ 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if the pic should be deleted, so should Image:Jarjar-Zanaq.png. Anyway I think that is is not a copyvio. ::The very strict dutch wikipedia allow things like my drawing of jarjar, and statuettes of cartoon-figures. On commons one may find a similar case like a man in a darth vader suit. Are these analogies are adequate? If one may photograph something, one may draw it too. Zanaq 15:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We should be considering the copyrights of the characters themselves. It's basically a reproduction. It's somewhat similar to the Firefox deletion request, which got deleted. You may want to read this court case about the "re-packaged" Seinfeld book and this general information about graphic characters. Also " In Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates the court appeared to commingle copyright and trademark law infringement criteria by stating that the Disney characters used by the defendants had "achieved a high degree of 'recognition' and 'identification'" and that these elements helped make the characters protectable under copyright law." Those Star Wars images are hard to mistake. Thus falling into the protectable category. (posted elsewhere before) -- WB 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

Kept per vote Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

[edit]

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

Image:Canada-ssm-map(fr).png

[edit]

This map is orphaned and outdated.--WolFox 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map is use in fr:Mariage homosexuel au Canada. It's a map about the situation before the new law. It's an historical map. Please keep this map ! --Pseudomoi 07:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical data. Deleting it would a.o. conflict with the articles history which would be a violation of GFDL. Besednjak 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept--Shizhao 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bisex Pride.png

[edit]

Redundant with Image:Bi flag.svg. --Fibonacci 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't this an automatic thing? Bas parler voir 15:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Rosa Winkel.png

[edit]

Redundant with Image:Pink triangle.svg. --Fibonacci 07:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Pink-triangle-gay.gif

[edit]

Redundant with Image:Pink triangle.svg. --Fibonacci 09:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Emmawatson1.JPG

[edit]

no reason for "Copyrighted free use" given. It's very unlikley that a scan from the Evening Standard Magazine is not "copyrighted - all rights reserved". --Baikonur 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Danradcliffe.jpg

[edit]

"© 2006 A Daniel Radcliffe Website. All Rights Reserved Dan Radcliffe.com." This user should probably be blocked for pretending that in fact copyright violations were under a free license (same user as above). --Baikonur 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Triangle-black.png

[edit]

Redundant with Image:Black triangle.svg. --Fibonacci 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Abejorral,_Antioquia,_Colombia_(bandera).png

[edit]

Redundant with Image:Abejorral,_Antioquia,_Colombia_(bandera).svg --Blondheid 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

[edit]

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

Image:Photo_seu_jorge_scene1.jpg

[edit]

No Source --Abu badali 12:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad

Image:Soho.gif

[edit]

This image is like all SOHO images only for educational und non-commercial purpose, see: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html Arnomane 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venera images after 1973

[edit]

Image:Venera_9_panorama.gif, Image:Venera_10_panorama.gif, Image:Venera_13_panorama.gif Image:Venera_13_color_panorama.jpg, Image:Venera_14_panorama.gif. These are russian images produced after 1973 and thus copyrighted. I have also written to the NASA contact at the bottom of the source but I never got a reply and very similar (if not the same) images were already deleted because of this negative result in Wikimedia Commons. So all these venus surface images of venera space probes have to be deleted. Arnomane 11:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vega_lander.jpg

[edit]
This image comes from a russian source and is also produced after 1973, so this image is copyrighted und thus unfree also note the quote at the bottom of the image source http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1984-128E: Probe image courtesy of Alexander Chernov and the Virtual Space Museum). Arnomane 11:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SchengenTreaty Map.png

[edit]

Redundant to Image:SchengenAgreement map.png. —Nightstallion (?) 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:X-evo-poster.jpg

[edit]

poster, fair use --Shizhao 05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lourdes Flores Cuarto Poder.JPG

[edit]

like vedio screenshot, fair use, not PD --Shizhao 05:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Aigo.JPG

[edit]

logo. fair use --Shizhao 08:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Micheael Phelps on Time Cover.jpg

[edit]

Time Cover. Fair use--Shizhao 08:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC) delete -- YolanC 08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lagomaggiore.svg

[edit]

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

Image:Earth_eclipse.jpg

[edit]
As the original caption at http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=189 says Image Credit: Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales. So this picture is unfree as the CNES does not provide freely licensed images. Arnomane 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gordon_Keeble

[edit]

Typo on creation, should have been Gordon-Keeble Prieni 19:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Image:Titania.jpg, Image:Venus_Galileo.jpg. Although these image came originally from NASA sadly a person that post processed them (the webmaster of solarviews.com) Calvin J. Hamilton claims own copyright on these image, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960923.html and http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Titania. Possibly all images with such a brown sepia color (like Titania image) on NASA pages are from Calvin J. Hamilton and there are many more such images from Calvin here in Wikimedia Commons. So I would like the uploaders to ask Calvin J. Hamilton and NASA for clarification. Otherwise I fear that they have to be deleted (if we cannot prove for every single image by comparison with the original raw images that it does not have sufficient improvement to justify own copyright). Arnomane 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Janus_moon.jpg A further images also copyright claims from Calvin J. Hamilton. Arnomane 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calvin may claim all he likes: images from NASA are public domain, and adding a color-filter does not constitute a significant creative act. (see corel vs. bridgeman) Zanaq 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that easy. Have you looked at the raw image of Image:Janus_moon.jpg? See: [27]. You will see that there has been a quite some post processing done by Calvin J. Hamilton. Of course I'm personally unsure too wether it is sufficient for own substantial work or not and I suppose only a lawyer could clarify this and that was my main purpose putting it here (and not to blame the uploader as this ist not an easy case). This is somewhat related to the Claude Monet image further down here. Arnomane 18:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping & color adjustment. real significant. IANAL, but I say keep. If it needs deletion anyway, let me know, I'll post-process the original myself. probably won't take more than 5 mins. Zanaq 09:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept--to be archived. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18
17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Image:Pioneer_Venus_assembly.gif

[edit]

Although this image is from a NASA page there is a very strange copyright notice at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/images/pvo_images.html, Quote: Images of the Pioneer Venus probes are courtesy of Ames Research Center and Hughes Aircraft Company. Ames Research Center is US-governmental but Hughes Aircraft Company certainly not. So it is questionable if these images are PD. Arnomane 12:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio
Does not belong to NASA. Marked with copyvio template Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Pluto Charon Moon Earth Comparison.png

[edit]

This image contains unfree parts (the Pluto and Charon image), see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000409.html. Quote: Credit: . W. Buie (Lowell Observatory), D. J. Tholen (U. Hawaii), and K. Horne (St. Andrews). it is copyrighted by several university people (no NASA-PD at all, Hubble images are not necessarily PD, only if NASA publishes them). Arnomane 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It says "Credit", not "Copyright". That website makes clear which images are subject to outside copyright by tagging on "Credit & Copyright" (etc.) instead of just "Credit" (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000806.html).
The about page states:
"All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location. NASA images are in the public domain…"
This implies that all the images have a "Credit" line, but at least some do not have copyrights applied - this in turn implies that those with only a "Credit" line but no mention of copyright are not subject to copyright. ¦ Reisio 14:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the point in this case. This images has not been published by NASA. This stuff is property of these universities (they paid for observation time and got the material in return). Arnomane 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not the point? That website presents it as an image unencumbered by nonNASA copyright. What makes you think it isn't? ¦ Reisio 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it reads that for any image credited to others than NASA, one has to ask permission. Sorry. David.Monniaux 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete K. Horne from St Andrews University in Scotland is not an employee of the United States' federal government therefore his or her work is not in the Public Domain. --Teofilo 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The implication from the about page is that copyrights have been waved except when noted with "Copyright". ¦ Reisio 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under international law (that is the en:Berne convention) copyright is born automatically by the sheer fact of creating a creative work. You don't have to use the copyright mark for a work to be copyrighted. since 1989 in the U.S., the use of copyright notices has become optional (quoted from : en:Copyright)--Teofilo 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the implication is that licensing restrictions (other than NASA's), not copyright, have been waved, naturally. ¦ Reisio 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio
Marked copyvio in accordance with [28]. This image does not belong to NASA and as such is not public domain. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bart Simpson Stoffpupe 2005-06-11 17-24.jpg

[edit]

A photo of a copyrighted Bart Simpsons doll. --ElRaki 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have you found it on the web ? YolanC 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can't copyright a doll, it's not a document. Deco 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, after reading more of the above discussion I'm unsure. It appears highly recognizable characters can be copyrighted, and he is. Deco 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now "highly recognizable" should be one of the deletion criterion as well? -- WB 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not even the goofy laws applying to derivative works encroach upon photographs. ¦ Reisio 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many court cases seem to suggest "highly recognizable" characters fall into the "copyrighted" category. You may want to re-consider your vote. -- WB 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prior discussion on this topic: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives03#Winnie_the_Pooh (image kept). --Patrick-br msg 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking a picture of a copyrighted object does not void the original copyright. It only creates an additional copyright for the photograph - if it is artful enough to be accepted as a derivative work. Otherwise, you have created a copy of the original, which infringes the copyrights of Matt Groening. Ask him about copyrighting dolls, if you don't believe me. --Fb78 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found two opinions about such a case in de.wikipedia and meta:
In de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Produktfotos (Marken, Cover, Comicfiguren, ...) is written Liegt ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk wie eine Comicfigur vor, so sind auch alle Vervielfältigungen und Bearbeitungen (Merchandisingartikel, die erkennbar die gleiche Figur zeigen) geschützt und können hier nicht abgebildet werden., which means that it isn't alllowed to licence a photo of a copyrighted comic doll under a free license.
A legal opinion of two German lawyers for Wikimedia Germany e.V.: meta:Rechtsfragen März 2005#c) Donald Duck Figuren etc., which says that dolls like Dondald Duck are copyrighted and you need a authorization of the copyrighter first. --ElRaki 08:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this case study on a case where a publishing house was going to print a collector's guide with photographs of Beanie Babies. They were allowed to do print them, but under "fair use" conditions. Quote: "(...) photographs of Beanie Babies are conceded to be derivative works, for which there may be a separate demand that Ty may one day seek to exploit, and so someone who without a license from Ty sold photographs of Beanie Babies would be an infringer of Ty’s sculpture copyrights." If we assume that the Bart Simpson doll would be treated analogously in an US court, it will be treated as a derivative work, which is a copyright infringement if published without permission. --Fb78 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK --Historiograf 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader hasn´t been notified. --Patrick-br msg 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. That's something you could have done though. --Fb78 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified him in the german WP on January 22, because his main account is there. He's last edit in de.wikipedia was 11. Jan 2006. --ElRaki 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Update: more precise ---ElRaki 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Fb78.--Teofilo 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This photograph was likely taken in Germany and German copyright law has been standardised with the rest of the EU over this issue. Such dolls are not on permanent public display like sculptures or paintings in galleries and squares and thus do not fall under Panoramafreiheit. The doll is the main subject of the photograph and so the exception to copyright for incidental inclusion of a copyrighted work in a photograph does not apply either. Fair use does not apply in Germany. David Newton 15:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed usage on all wikipedias other than user pages. I am saving a copy of this image to my local drive just in case, but this image is ready to go. Give uploader a few more days to respond. Notified on 31 January. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted

As of 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC), this image is deleted. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir

January 24

[edit]

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

Image:Tex_edhistorica001.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. A photograph of a copyrighted cover does not void the original copyright. If you're lucky, it creates an additional copyright for the photographer. You still need the approval of the cover creator. This is not a valid workaround for copyright protection. --Fb78 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Isn't copyvio. The copyright makes part of landscape and don't make any sense delete it. See the note above image: "Note: Eventually some trademarks, registered visual identity or some person can be found in the image, however it's in 3D and is integrant part of the landscape." It's clear. FML hi 16:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no landscape in that image! It is just the cover, which is copyrighted.--Gaf.arq 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a copyrighted magazine cover. The fact that there's a bit of linear perspective isn't sufficient. If it's used on any wiki that accepts fair use material, consider pushing it there before deleting. User:dbenbenn 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But If it's like that, I think that We need to delete, also, Image:Goofy (Pateta) on top of my TV.jpg and others like that. By the same argument Taking a picture of a three-dimensional object does not void the copyright held by the object's creator. I don't see the diference between a book and a doll, because they are 3D objects with a copyright. Manuel Anastácio 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Here's someone who got it. --Fb78 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is it! The Commons accept objects with sufficient perspective. hugs, FML hi 15:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us where you got that idea? Please read Commons:Licensing. --Fb78 17:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lucky luke1.JPG

[edit]

Copyvio. A photograph of a copyrighted figure does not void the original copyright. 1. The creator of Lucky Luke holds a copyright to the figure as a drawing. 2. The creator of the sculpture had to get permission from the creator of Lucky Luke to make the sculpture. 3. The person who took the picture may or may not have created a derivative (i.e. copyrighted) work - in any case, he has taken a picture of copyrighted items, which requires permission from the creators. See above (Asterix figures, Bart Simpson doll). --Fb78 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible. Maybe you want to read the following which I copied from above discussion:

I have found two opinions about such a case in de.wikipedia and meta:
In de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Produktfotos (Marken, Cover, Comicfiguren, ...) is written Liegt ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk wie eine Comicfigur vor, so sind auch alle Vervielfältigungen und Bearbeitungen (Merchandisingartikel, die erkennbar die gleiche Figur zeigen) geschützt und können hier nicht abgebildet werden., which means that it isn't alllowed to licence a photo of a copyrighted comic doll under a free license.
A legal opinion of two German lawyers for Wikimedia Germany e.V.: meta:Rechtsfragen März 2005#c) Donald Duck Figuren etc., which says that dolls like Dondald Duck are copyrighted and you need a authorization of the copyrighter first. --ElRaki 08:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this case study on a case where a publishing house was going to print a collector's guide with photographs of Beanie Babies. They were allowed to do print them, but under "fair use" conditions. Quote: "(...) photographs of Beanie Babies are conceded to be derivative works, for which there may be a separate demand that Ty may one day seek to exploit, and so someone who without a license from Ty sold photographs of Beanie Babies would be an infringer of Ty’s sculpture copyrights." If we assume that the Bart Simpson doll would be treated analogously in an US court, it will be treated as a derivative work, which is a copyright infringement if published without permission. --Fb78 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JieFanTaiwan.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. copyright not expired--Shizhao 09:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machadao.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. No source, no license. --Patrick-br msg 11:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machadao 2.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. No source, no license. --Patrick-br msg 11:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heartagram.svg

[edit]

Heartagram is copyrighted by the finnish band HIM with a commercially licensed use given to Bam Margera. It is hence not free or PD. See en:Heartagram for info about HIM and Margera. Dake 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Fb78 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubase SX

[edit]

Image:Rodillo de piano Cubase.jpg Image:Pistas Cubase.jpg Image:Partitura Cubase.jpg

fair use--Shizhao 02:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panico.jpg

[edit]

not patents --Shizhao 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flug neuschwanstein jan2006.jpg

[edit]

same Image:Hang glider neuschwanstein jan2006.jpg--Shizhao 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mao-tiananmen-portrait.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. 1960s-1970s draw--Shizhao 02:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jia Qinglin.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. see [29]--Shizhao 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:China2C Mao .jpg

[edit]

same Image:China, Mao (2).jpg--Shizhao 02:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wu Bangguo.jpg

[edit]

copyvio. see [30]--Shizhao 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ps3main.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ps3logo.jpg

[edit]

logo, fair use--Shizhao 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Map eng.gif

[edit]

No source, but clearly from [31]. Bottom left corner states "Copyright ... All Rights Reserved" - FrancisTyers 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The source is obvious. It is taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Republic and retrived from http://www.mfa.gov.az/eng/armenian_aggresion/history.shtml. You can also go to the web site and see it. The material in the site is permitted for use in line that describes the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories and the excruciating consequences of the Armenian agression. If you need more information, please let me know and I will provide it. Francis, before you go for any actio, please let me know and I will provide it. I am absolutely against of the deletion of this picture. It again seems that the armenian machine is at work.

You can find the same picture in Azrbaijan section of UN. Please, go to this web page. http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/agression.php . Which means that the accuracy of the source is unquestionable.

Please, also note that the source of the picture is public, produced by public funds of Azerbaijanis like me and can be used by Azerbaijanis free in line with the public goods law of Azerbaijan.Bests --71.195.182.195 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, works of the government paid for by the public's taxes are copyrighted. We do not know Azerbaidjan's laws. We should thus request an authorization from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaidjan. David.Monniaux 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, since I will need then communicate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and taking the nature of bureacracy, please give me a weak to bring you the written consent for the use of this map. Bests--71.195.182.195 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally does not work retroactively. You should get permission and then upload the map. The deletion process will go on as usual and if it is deleted and you get permission after the fact you are welcome to re-add it. - 139.222.127.29 11:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i should indicate for permission. Should I copy the email message from them or how I need to prove that the permission is receieved for this map. Bests,--71.195.182.195 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the permission from MFA for the use of this file. I will upload the permission document in pdf file and will sohw you the link to it. Bests--71.195.182.195 17:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC). The link to the official permission document from the MFA for the use of map_eng.jpg is uploaded and you can reach it here. Image:MFA.jpg[reply]

This permission grants a licence without any alterations thus prohibits derivative works. David.Monniaux 07:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We use it in Wikipedia without derivative works and alterations and do not intend to do any alteration in the future as well. --71.195.182.195 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded both versions to my computer and they're the same byte size and resolution. It's not altered in any way, so permission to use this picture appears valid. 65.33.156.96 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand - the point is that it is against commons policy (and against the policy of most, if not all, wikipedias) to have images that do not allow derivative work. All content must be free to be used by anyone, for any purpose. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and Deleted

Clearly a copyright violation. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Who decided on this? What the hell you think you are? There was no alteration. The copyright permission on such sensitive issues can not be given without reservations on alteration. Any change of the picture could mean different things. You bastards and stupid assholes and you think you know something.

Image:Pooh.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. Same case as Image:Lucky luke1.JPG. --Fb78 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible I'm talking seriously. Would you all please get some information about copyrights. If you want to print this picture of a toy on a bed on a T-shirt and sell it, we'll see if Disney's lawyers agree. You can take pictures of all your toys if you want, but you can't put them under a free license as long as someone holds a copyright on them. I don't think the camera, the spatula etc. should be deleted too - their designers probably can't claim too much originality to the design. However, originality comes gradually - so if you design an especially "artful" new camera case, there's no problem to claim a copyright for it. That includes the right to take pictures of it and sell them, which means everyone else will have to get permission from you for doing the same thing. The same follows for paintings, sculptures and everything else with a high degree of originality. --Fb78 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me that archive.org has lawyers and is aware of copyright infringement. But this movie is tagged under public domain (and so this screenshot). --Patrick-br msg 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept

No clear consensus. Image remains Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Donald Duck suitcase small2.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. Just like everything else in Category:Action_figures_from_comics. You need a permission to sell sculptures from copyrighted figures, you need a permission to sell photographs of copyrighted figures. Maybe the qualify as "fair use", but they are not free from the original copyrights. --Fb78 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACK --134.130.68.65 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And delete, also, all the photos with dressed people (some clothes have copyright too, or have copyrighted drawings) or with tattooings too. Manuel Anastácio 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... O_o FML hi 04:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and Deleted

-In process of removing and deleting today Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

[edit]

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

Image:Disneyland_paris.jpg

[edit]
Why the request? --ALE! 10:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:See below.

Image:Efteling anton pieck plain netherlands.jpg

[edit]
Reason: see below.

Image:Efteling house of the five senses entrance netherlands.jpg

[edit]
Reason: see below.

Image:Wellenflug.jpg

[edit]

All four pictures above contain copyrighted contents, which are not accessory. I didn't think/know about this at uploading. (See also (german only): User_talk:Historiograf#Meine_Bilder_evtl._URV.3F) --Boris23 17:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which one to take, so I take the longer process. If speedy deletion is consensus in this case someone may request/do it. --Boris23 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HanksOshin.jpg

[edit]

Vanity image which was uploaded to accompany a non-notable vanity article on the English Wikipedia. The article has been speedy deleted. --Zoe 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Derrick Finch.jpeg

[edit]

Vanity image which was uploaded to accompany a non-notable vanity article on the French Wikipedia. The article is going to be deleted [32]. Poppy 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Article a été supprimé 1 février 2006 à 09
54 Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything by Alfons Mucha

[edit]

On this page and elsewhere. This Czech painter died in 1939, which means that his work will become PD on 1 January 2010. --AndreasPraefcke 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SKH Lam Woo Memorial Secondary School Badge.jpg

[edit]

copyvio -- Gakmo 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Redlions.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Type 99.jpg

[edit]

not GFDL, copyvio. see [33]. "Copyright © 2002-2006 Chinese Defence Today. All rights reserved"--Shizhao 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image-lamborghini gallardo spyder.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 03:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abejorral, Antioquia, Colombia (bandera).png

[edit]

I accidentally uploaded a copy I had on my HD of this recently-deleted file. --Fibonacci 07:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cary.grant.bristol.arp.500pix.jpg

[edit]

Unsure. Copyright status of photos of recent statues exposed in public places in the UK? David.Monniaux 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
62.—
(1) This section applies to—
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv62 This means this picture can be displayed on the English language Wikipedia. As it may not be allowed in other countries (for example France) if should be deleted from Commons. Delete (and move the picture to the English language Wikipedia). Teofilo 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense keep We definitively accept all German Panoramafreiheit pictures. They all must be deleted if Teofilo is right. Only because not very important countries like Belgium or LA GRANDE NATION do not accept this freedom we cannot delete such pictures. In Germany, Austria, CH, Poland etc. such pictures are allowed. --Historiograf 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We definitively accept all German Panoramafreiheit pictures : I disagree with that. German Panoramafreiheit pictures must be deleted from Commons and moved to the German-speaking Wikipedia. Article 5.2 of the Bern convention says : such enjoyment and such exercise [of copyright] shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. source. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for all Wikipedia language editions : it is therefore not a private club for the sole English and German Wikipedians. --Teofilo 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teofilo. -- WB 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Photograph taken in the UK. Likelihood of anyone in France or South Korea or Germany or the United States entirely remote. Image is legal to use on all Wikipedias. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept
No clear consensus Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:James Joyce.jpg

[edit]

Sorry guys, I know this image is used widely in all major wikimedia-projects, but it is a copyvio non the less. According to [34] it was made by Berenice Abbott, who died only in 1991, therefor the image is copyrighted until 2062-01-01. --h-stt 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

too bad :/ 643 wikis searched. James_Joyce.jpg is used on 36 pages in 29 projects. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 02:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Teofilo 16:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I bet it won't be as hard to get rid of as Donald Duck with Suitcase was... Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and Deleted
In process of removal and deletion. You can help!. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

[edit]

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

Image:Thermen (Weißenburg in Bayern).jpg

[edit]

Did this from inside, which is is not allowed in DE (against Panoramafreiheit) --Brego 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - It doesn't mean the image is copyrighted, right? It just means that you broke German law by taking the picture, right? Bas parler voir 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not change the copyright status of this image, only a law might be broken if taking a photograph was forbidden from inside. --Denniss 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Panoramafreieheit comes into this only if anything that's deemed copyrightable is schown on the picture. That may include architectonic features and decoration, as well as the obvious images, sculpures, etc. However, I don't belive that is true for this image, since it maily shows ruins that are literally thousands of years old.
If you took the images in violation of the "house rules" of that place, this does not change the copyright of the image. I have no idea what they can do to you for it, besides throwing you out/not letting you in again. Possibly they could sue for demage, because they didn't sell as much postcards because of your image? Possible, but not very likely.
That being said: it's up to you, Brego, if you want to take the risk. I don't see any problem with the copyright. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blame me, I really don't remember what the rules have been in that building. And for me this image is not worth enough to go through this ask-the-museum-if-it-were-allowed thing. So, I ask for the deletion, just to be on the safe side ;-) --Brego 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brego did not understand the sense of Panoramafreiheit although he should able to read the good article in the German Wikipedia on this topic. I cannot see a work protected by copyright on his picture. If not explicitly forbidden it is allowed to take photographs inside and to use them in any way you want - my point of view, see the article Wikipedia:Fotos von fremdem Eigentum --Historiograf 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it has nothing to do with copyright. Whatever is your understanding, it can be nonetheless my problem, if it wasn't right to do the photos, right? So be nice and better let me as source of the picture ask for a deletion. Fotos von fremden Eigentum is a mess of POV and I'm not in the mood for Haarespaltereien ;-) --Brego 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking NONSENSE. When you are using Panoramafreiheit in your request for deletion you are speking of nothing else than copyright. Panoramafreiheit is only a copyright term. Yo have not proven that it was not right to take the photos from this heritage item. They are correctly licensed and I will upload them if they were deleted --Historiograf 01:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again you tried to confuse others: I referred to the part in the article Panoramafreiheit about consequences for me, when taking interior photographs, what has nothing to do with copyrights. It has to do with fairness and respect to my wish as the photographer. The point is: I shouldn't have uploaded this photograph. Humans make sometimes errors. Besides this, you may think about changing your interaction with others. Not everybody knows you from DE, but judges you from your behavior here, where we have this Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline too. --Brego 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besednjak 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - Upload user requested deletion, not used. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17
23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Image:Les Demoiselles de Avignon.jpg

[edit]

This work is copyrighted and certainly not "first published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923." --Teofilo 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was painted in France in 1907 and bought in the late 30's by the Museum of Modern Art in NY, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/picasso_a.html then I suppose the work is copyrighted by the Artists Rights Society and anyway, the author's copyright has not expired yet, he died 33 years ago. This other image Image:Gertrude Stein by Pablo Picasso.jpeg might be in the same case, right? Anna 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess these works were first published in France not in the United States. But it might be true that their publication in the United States took place before 1923. That might enable these works to be considered Public Domain in the United States. But they are still protected in France, so they have to be removed from Commons. --Teofilo 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commons can't follow each law in France, USA, Brittain, ... YolanC 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teofilo, some non-US works that were considered public domain in the US have been reverted to copyrighted status following from the Uruguay Round international agreement. YolanC, this work is copyrighted everywhere in the EU and in countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, that is, almost every country in the world. David.Monniaux 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Mexico.svg

[edit]

I recieved this communication from Juan Manuel Gamibno Valliscan on 01/19/2006: Juan Manuel says: Actually I do not want to send an SVG image, for it is a vector image format.... every one would use it as their wish, giving no credit at all.... If most of them refused to give credit to bit-map image, Do you figure it out what would happen with a vector-format image? Because of this, we cannot have this coat of arms, but other users complained in the past that other coat of arms we have used are not as accuarte or were incorrect in many respects. Since there is no way that we could use an SVG flag, like this, without violating the ToU that Juan Manul has stated to me, or appeasing our users, we should just stick to the PNG image and work on something for the SVG image at a later time. Zach (Smack Back) 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While the flag is not entirely accurate, it is certainly adequate for smaller sized images; plus the fact that it is here will provide the next user with a basis from which to start, and upload it. Juan Manuel seems highly paranoid. Bas parler voir 02:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought. If we were worried about complete accuracy of the SVG versions of images then most of the flags we have here with emblems aren't going to be acceptable. Bas parler voir 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have faith that this flag will eventually be improved. User:dbenbenn 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having trouble understanding what's going on here. Was this uploaded without permission, or with a misunderstanding that permission was given? Or is the original artist trying to change the license after granting? Does the problem affect all versions or just the most recent? Morven 05:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Jaun Manuel Gamibno Valliscan is responsible for the emblem on Image:Flag of Mexico.png. Zscout traced this image (with potrace in Inkscape, I'm guessing) to get the similar rendition on Image:Flag of Mexico.svg. I'm not sure that (a) we need permission to do things like this, or (b) we can't use the exact same image if it's truly accurate.
Z, you might mention to Juan that if we're not using something based on his image, we'll just have to make our own, and it's sure to be at least as accurate. He'll then have _zero_ credit. ¦ Reisio 19:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am still coming up with ideas for making this image in SVG, but I came up with something at w:Image:Flag of Mexico.svg, and I have the MX copyright law to help me now (thanks to Google). Zach (Smack Back) 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keeped--Shizhao 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Goat sculpture by Picasso.jpg

[edit]

If this sculpture is indeed by Picasso, the statue is still copyrighted and the photo cannot be put under a Free licence, can it ? Rama 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Monet-Orsay-1.jpg

[edit]

License error, Rama is not Monet. -- ArtMechanic 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a licence error. I am not Monet, but I took the photograph, and I claim copyright on the photograph (not on the painting, obviously). Rama 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Die Kopie eines Werkes ist keine eigenständige schöpferische Leistung. Richtig wäre vielleicht {{PD-old}}. -- ArtMechanic 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could care to talk English like everybody else here.
You are mistaken. Nothing prevents me from claiming copyright of a photograph of a painting, under French laws. As you have noticed, this photograph was taken in France, and French laws apply. Rama 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is nothing specific for Germany, that a reproduction of a two dimenional work does not give you an own copyright onto this reproduction, see e.g. w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for the situation in the US. I guess there are similar cases in France too. But anyways we are talking here about Claude Monet that died in 1926... Arnomane 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in France is unfortunately not affected by the German and US law and jurisprudence. As for Monet, I think that his work is now public domain, but I welcome any further data on this. Rama 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rama come on. We both know that Germany is not France and vice versa (and ArsMechanic should please write in English so that everyone can follow the discussion) but this is something about the definition what copyright is. Copyright needs to have a substantial own creative work/improvement. And a pure reproduction (regardless if it was difficult to take it and I suppose you put quite some energy into it making it a perfect reproduction) fails this definition of substantial own work and this is international. The question is and this is different from county to country how much own creative work is needed to be able to protect it. And thus I would be very interested how high the barrier in France is as I do not know it. And by the way German "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is heavily influenced by the french "droit d'auteur" and not the anglo-saxon copyright like many other "german" laws that are coming from France (thanks to Napoleon and his revolutionary Code Civile). Arnomane 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But apart from that you are right. I have marked it as PD-old and explicitely added you as photographer as you are the source of this photo. Have a look if you like it. Arnomane 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Monet died in 1926, eg. more than 70 years ago so his works are in the public domain. My opinion is that it is important to protect the public domain from copyright claims by big business or individuals and I question the value of restricting people's freedom to use Monet's work as they please, even if only adding GFDL or CC to an image. Thuresson 00:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are a number of misunderstandings here which should be cleared:
  • Copyright laws from country A and B do not apply to country C. Furthermore, laws from country C cannot be implied from the laws of countries A and B. "Copyright needs to have a substantial own creative work/improvement" is US jurisprudence. Can you point me to the French law (and perhaps jurisprudence) which say so ?
  • Law, especially copyright law, is a complex topic. If it was possible to draw general conclusions about international copyright laws from "common sense", a whole lot of people would be searching for jobs.
  • French law uses the concept of droit d'auteur ("author's right"), not copyright.
  • "Claude Monet died in 1926, eg. more than 70 years ago" is a further instance of naive understanding of copyright laws. Copyright in France extends further than 70 years, to compensate for the World Wars. It is my understanding that Monet's work is now in the public domain anyhow, but "more than 70 years ago" is very symptomatic.
  • There are a number of very real cases in France where people claim copyright for similar reproductions of bi-dimensional works (for instance, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France claims copyright on its reproductions). It might, or not, so be that these claims are in fact not valid; however, to this day, I am not aware of a clear decision on the matter in France.
  • To the extend where I can claim copyright on my work, it is my wish to do so. I am not all that keen to putting my work in the Public Domain, notably because I desire all subsequent copies of it to be Free as well. Of course, if it is not possible to claim copyright, I am satisfied with Public Domain; however, in this case, since there have be no clear decision in France toward a "Copyright needs to have a substantial own creative work/improvement", I prefer staying on the safe side and claim copyright. Rama 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rama. please read my comment above. You will see that in Germany there is the very same concept of droit d'auteur ("author's right") thanks to the times we Germans were barbarians and did not have own ideas (for sure there are differences but they are far less than those between Germany and the US). Apart from that there are people in Germany as well that claim a copyright on reproduction. Well people can claim a lot if the day is long... (and they do, just some weeks ago I had a dispute with someone that wanted to sue Wikipedia because he thought we infringe his copyright on a scan of an old land map). So for now this discussion leads to nothing and the image will be kept anyways. Perhaps Villy and David.Moniaux can enlighten us at Commons:Licensing about the amount of substantial own work at that is necessary in France as they are French people and know the subject. So this discussion is now closed here. Arnomane 10:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you keep referring to German laws. They are certainly very interesting, but are totally irrelevant to this case. Rama 13:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refer to German laws but for sure I know them (naturally best) and thus I might have a German bias. But these things I told you have in fact nothing to do with German specific stuff. I'm very interested (and for sure the rest of Commons too) in getting to know how much substantial own work is needed in order to have an own "droit d'auteur" on an work in France. This is something I do not know and that could be enlightened best by a French lawyer. And I assume we both are not French lawyers. I hope that in future you can also differentiate better between me and some other German person(s) that might go on your nerves. I tried to solve the matter with you and not against you. Arnomane 14:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the image is either GFDL or PD, there's no reason for deletion either way. This is not the right place for this discussion. That being said, I belive reproductions of PD work are not copyrightable - but i'm not positive about the situation in france. Anyway, claiming copyright to the photo and putting it under a free license seems a non-problem to me: the worst thing that could happen would be that someone uses it without giving credit to Rama. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason to delete. Bas parler voir 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Arnomane 10:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!. Someone went and deleted this image out of process after we agreed to keep it. Can we get it undeleted? My vote is keep, by the way. Deco 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama uploaded an improved version with better colors under Image:Monet-Orsay-brut.jpg. I do not comment the possibly wrong license tag further but someone (preferably a french person) should sort that out as I'm not keen on having an argue if Rama does not listen to me. Arnomane 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have put a notice here as well. Arnomane, I am listening to you, but I have not seen you provide anything about French law; German and US laws are interesting, but one can not presume of what is in French law by analogy to what is in the law of foreign countries. There are instances of people in France who do claim copyright on trivial reproductions, so until I can get my hands on clear rulings of the matter, I think that we have to consider the matter at least doubtful. Rama 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

[edit]

This is a modified image based on the Madonna album cover American Life (photo for comparison).

Thuresson 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Image:Kymco s.gif Image:Minolta-logo-velke.gif Image:8723.jpg

copyvio --Shizhao 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all deleted. have checked--Shizhao 04:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:320px-Draconian1.jpg

[edit]

Screen shot of a popular TRS-80 Color Computer game, not free copyright. see en:Image:Draconian1.jpg, fair use--Shizhao 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Interstate blank.png

[edit]

Replaced by Image:Interstate blank.svg. No longer used on en; someone should check usage on other projects. --SPUI 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted.--Shizhao 07:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UP Big Boy 4012.jpg

[edit]

This is a Fair Use / Permission image from the EN Wikipedia and should not have been uploaded to commons. --Morven 05:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Various Interstate shields

[edit]

Will run check-usage in a bit and fix all. --SPUI 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check-usage done; none are used anywhere but galleries of user-uploaded images and temporary pages. --SPUI 08:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm marking the ones with local links in galleries as {{Redundant}}. The others I'm progressively removing. Bas parler voir 17:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything marked as {{Redundant}} or deleted Bas parler voir 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Left notice on user pages that the redundant images were in line for deletion. Please allow them to go through the system as redundant images normally do. Bas parler voir 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Gertrude Stein by Pablo Picasso.jpeg

[edit]

This picture is still copyrighted in France. The author died less than 71 years ago. --Teofilo 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not Spanish instead of French copyright law apply here? (Although I think that the periods of the two will be equal) - Andre Engels 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
en:Gertrude Stein spent most of her life in France.--Teofilo 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the 1993 directive, I suspect that Spanish copyright law also covers at least for 70 years. David.Monniaux 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pablo Picasso self-portrait.jpg

[edit]

This picture is still copyrighted in France. The author died less than 71 years ago. --Teofilo 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lola Picasso the Artist's Sister.jpg

[edit]

This picture is still copyrighted in France. The author died less than 71 years ago.--Teofilo 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Lola Picasso the Artist's Sister.jpg

[edit]

This picture is still copyrighted in France. The author died less than 71 years ago.--Teofilo 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Mathieu01.jpg

[edit]

The author is still alive --Teofilo 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why cannot be GFDL?
Ask ro:Utilizator:MobyDick - original uploader. Maksim 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Georges Mathieu has not given a permission to do so.--Teofilo 11:33, 30 January 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:Nokia N-Gage.jpg

[edit]

The property rights attached to that image belong to the Nokia corporation who designed this industrial product. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. --Teofilo 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Grm_wnr alone cannot license this work, because he is not the sole author of it. He is only one co-author. Unless both authors (him and the Nokia corporation) reach an agreement to license the work, the work has no license, and therefore may not be published. --Teofilo 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky... while it is true that product design can be copyrighted, and photos of copyrighted objects would have to be licensed by the original designer as well as the photographer, but we have to draw a line somewhere. For example, we do allow images of cars, clothing, etc, while the designe of those objects often is copyrighted. On the othe hand, we do not allow pictures of book covers, cartoon figures, and the like. In another discussion on this page, someone suggested to allow pictures of objects if their look/design is not their primary purpose... sounds good in a way, but it's still hard to decide, especially for things like cell phones.

That being said: it seems the N-Gage is a borderline case here. I really don't know what to do about it. Copyright law is a mess :( -- Duesentrieb(?!) 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we do allow images of cars : on which basis do Wikipedians do so? Don't you think the car manufacturer may object the use of his cars in commercial uses such as posters or postcards? Can I make an advertisment for car wash equipment (soap or sponge) with a photograph showing someone washing a car without the consent of the car manufacturer? --Teofilo 18:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
definitely maybe. This is one of the many aspects of yopright that are very blurry. If someone know more about this, it would be excelent to put information about this on Commons:Licensing. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A hint is given on that page on a professional car photographer's internet site : Famous cars are instantly recognisable and their name, shape and logos are copyrighted by the manufacturer. Whilst permission is not normally required for editorial use in a positive way, permission from the manufacturer will be needed for advertising or merchandising use. It is your responsibility to ensure you have the required permission. Be sure to read out terms and conditions before using images. --Teofilo 12:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont think that commercial and industrial products are protected by copyright law in most countries. eg in the UK only artistic works are included, everything else is only covered by trademark law. Even if some countries allow copyright on say the shape of a car, that only stops you reproducing something of (substantially) the same shape, not a photo of it. Justinc 10:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, have you read what I wrote just above, concerning the use of cars in advertisements? --Teofilo 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read it, but it is from a photo site, not a proper legal source. Photo agencies are very paranoid, requiring all sorts of signed releases for stuff even though there is no legal basis. If you can back it up with a real legal source it might be meaningful. Justinc 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you mean that images of commercial products cannot be released under a free license at all, or that we should merely not host them on Commons? Because if the former was true, non-fair use projects like de could not illustrate articles on commercial items at all, while in the latter case, it would only be a major inconvenience since every image could still to be uploaded to the projects directly. --grmwnr 10:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest is this : Commons_talk:Licensing#We_need_a_new_license. And non-fair use projects perhaps should rethink their policy. --Teofilo 01:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request legal advice I'm going to ask the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers about this. David.Monniaux 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea ! --Teofilo 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any lawyer notification yet? Otherwise, someone should to remove and delete. Please, however, save the image to your own drive before you do so. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some rather loose terminology employed here. What you seem to be confusing is several distinct intellectual property rights. First there is the copyright that Nokia holds on the appearance of the item in question. Then there is the trademarks displayed on the phone, including the name Nokia itself. Third we have the design right in the phone. I don't know whether Finland has unregistered design right like the UK, but it certainly has registered design right and I strongly suspect that Nokia has registered the design of this kit.

We don't have to particularly worry about the trademarks or the design right on Commons. We aren't trying to manufacture copies of the phone so we aren't infringing the design right. Normal photos don't infringe trademarks unless used for things like advertising or used in such a way as to suggest that the holder of the trademark endorses what is being done with the photograph. Copyright is the thing we have to worry about. This object is not on permanent public display and so any exception to copyright in that respect is null and void. Taking a photograph with it as the main subject negates any exception to copyright with respect to incidental inclusion of a copyrighted object. This photograph is being used in a public place to the exception to copyright for private research also doesn't apply. If the photograph, as looks likely, was taken outside the US then fair use is not an issue. Fair use does not exist outside the United States and so anyone who relies on it for things like this is skating on very thin ice. David Newton 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Newton, nobody relies on Fair Use at Commons. Fair Use is grounds here for quick deletion. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept - No consensus

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

[edit]

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

Image:Darfur refugees.jpg

[edit]

I doubt that this image is in the public domain or CopyrightedFreeUse because the reason for that stated first on de.wikipedia.org is wrong. The text on de:Wikipedia:Public-Domain-Bilderquellen only mentions a permission for images of members of the Bundestag (CDU/CSU-Bundestagsabgeordnete) not arbitrary images from that website. --Baikonur 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove and delete.

On use on many pages. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Simpsons

[edit]

Image:Maggie Simpson.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maggie_Simpson_2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lisa_Simpson_web.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Places toronto ttc marge.jpg

[edit]

Removed from usage and deleted--Shizhao 06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marge_Simpson_2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simpsons on las Ramblas.jpg

[edit]

Ugly photo!

Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Homer_Simpson_2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Olentzero Simpson.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted

—Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charles_Montgomery_Burns_2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
Removed from usage and deleted.

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sideshow_Bob_2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
removed from usage and deleted.

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apu Nahasapeemapetilon 2005-11-09.jpg

[edit]
removed from projects and deleted.

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. None of these pictures can be used commercially. They are all derivative works from copyrighted figures. --Fb78 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in this question. We need a permanent criteria about commercial objects, like this. --Patrick-br msg 11:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different question. The problem you're referring to is whether industrial design objects like computer cases are copyrightable or not. Simpsons characters, just like any other comic book character, are clearly copyrightable (Do you disagree here?). That means, by taking a picture of them you produce a derivative work, which needs permission from the original creator (that's legal consensus in the US). Therefore you can't use these pictures outside "fair use".
The purpose of these images here is to get around the copyright of their authors. Do you actually think you could take these pictures and modify them, e.g. for creating a comic strip with them, or a little movie? Would you print them in an ad? I don't think so. We're talking about figures that are copyrighted just like a modern statue. How do we treat modern works of art on Commons? We don't allow pictures of them unless they are installed permanently in a public place. If not, they have to go. Same here. --Fb78 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually think you could take these pictures and modify them, e.g. for creating a comic strip with them, or a little movie? Would you print them in an ad? Same answers to all images on Apple Macintosh and Category:Porn stars (just two examples). --Patrick-br msg 13:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? If you can prove that porn stars hold a copyright to their face and body, we'll have to talk about deleting these images. --Fb78 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are misconfusing copyright, right of image and trade mark. Image:CIA seal.jpg is under public domain, although No person may, except with the written permission of the Director, knowingly use the words “Central Intelligence Agency”, the initials “CIA”, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. There are limitations on use that are independent of copyright. So, yes, you can have these Bart Simpsons toys photos on commons, but you can´t use it for creating a comic strip, a little movie or print them in an ad. --Patrick-br msg 13:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The creators of the Simpsons dolls have to agree with publishing photos of their works. Prove me wrong. --Fb78 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. You want to delete these images, you have to proof they are infringements. --Patrick-br msg 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." [35]
2. A photograph of a copyrighted item is considered a derivative work in US jurisdiction (see [36], [37], [38] for example).
3. US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 106: "(...) (T)he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (...) (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"
Therefore, "unauthorized" derivative works like these pictures must be deleted. --Fb78 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fb78 is right and in accordance with the policy in the German Wikipedia. --Historiograf 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question: why "preserve" Apple Macintosh and Volkswagen? What´s the difference? Everything told about Simpsons files applies to these images. --Patrick-br msg 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this one should get deleted, they should be seriously considered as well. -- WB 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, none of the files has been tagged as {{Deletion requests}} and uploader has not been notified, as stated in Commons:Deletion requests. --Patrick-br msg 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images have been tagged and uploaders notified on 4 February 2006. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All deleted. Copyright violation information in The Simpsons article.

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

Spongebob Squarepants

[edit]

I removed images from article and added "fair use" text. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spongebob squarepants ü-ei-figur spongebob.jpg

[edit]
Removed from projects and deleted

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spongebob squarepants ü-ei-figur parick.jpg

[edit]
Removed from projects and deleted.

But I felt I had to upload it to de: It looked so good on Asmoo's page. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spongebob squarepants ü-ei-figur mr. krabs.jpg

[edit]

Image:Spongebob squarepants ü-ei-figur sandy.jpg

[edit]

Image:Spongebob squarepants ü-ei-figur gary.jpg

[edit]

See above. None of these pictures can be used commercially. They are all derivative works from copyrighted figures. --Fb78 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above Simpsons deletion. -- WB 07:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All removed.

— Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cajal-mi.jpg

[edit]

Declared as public domain by the uploader on the casis that Cajal (the subject) died in 1934. However, I thought that copyright laws refered to the lifespan of the creator of the work and not that of the subject--it is perfectly possible that the photographer in this case lived well beyond 1934. JeremyA 22:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description says its a self portrait, therefore its creator died on the same day as Cajal. --Fb78 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, so it is. I completely missed that. I withdraw the deletion request. JeremyA 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep--Shizhao 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept. --Shizhao 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:François, Duke of Anjou.jpg

[edit]

A duplicate was uploaded at Image:Anjou 1570louvre.jpg, and its caption indicates that the original picture has long been mislabeled. It is, in fact, Henri, duc d'Anjou, later Henri III, and not François, Duke of Anjou. The filename is misleading and it should be removed in favor of the other. 140.163.188.71 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This filename may be misleading, but the other filename isn't that great either. Let's upload a new copy under Image:Henri, duc d'Anjou 1570 Louvre.jpg or something like that and kill them both. Deco 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Bistro#François de France for a discussion about this. Thuresson 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded Image:Henri duc dAnjou 1570.jpeg from Image:Anjou 1570louvre.jpg, copied that images information to new page, and marked both originals redundant to the new one. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant

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

Image:Ferrari badge.jpg

[edit]

copyrighted logo --Fb78 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted.--Shizhao 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo. --Mihalyia 09:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lochs or Category:Scottish Lochs

[edit]

One of the above should be deleted as they are mutually redundant--AFAIK Lochs are found only in Scotland. JeremyA 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Lochs. Bas parler voir 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Safari 1.2.4.png

[edit]

Screenshotof a non-free software, I'm afraid. While the rendering core of Safari is the GPL'd KHTML, the user interface is still copyrighted by Apple Computer. --grmwnr 10:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, a screenshot of a non-free software is not a copyright violation unless it shows the workings of that software, for example menus or other displays of elements which make the software unique. However, this screen shot is no longer in use afaik, and is probably redundant. Delete - Amgine 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think screenshot of non-free softwares are copyright violation. The designs (like the brushed steel in this case) are by Apple, and this is not the case now, but Windows screenshot almost always have icons everywhere, which would be a violation as well. -- WB 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ferrari Prancing Horse on black.jpg

[edit]

as well as Image:Ferrari Prancing Horse.jpg, Image:Ferrarimascot.jpg

copyrighted logo --Fb78 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: delete just Image:Ferrarimascot.jpg--Gaf.arq 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RL 1958 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa Scuderia.jpg

[edit]

copyrighted logo --Fb78 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Cities in Scotland & Category:Dumfries and Galloway & Category:Perthshire

[edit]

Three categories that I created in error. In the cases of Category:Cities in Scotland & Category:Dumfries and Galloway. categories of similar name/purpose already exist. Category:Perthshire is an old name for the area, I have created a replacement for this at Category:Perth and Kinross.--JeremyA 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tim und Struppi.jpg

[edit]

Another copyvio by someone who thinks that putting a copyrighted picture on a sweatshirt and then taking a picture of it somehow magically turns it into public domain. --Fb78 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Vipper icon.png

[edit]

This is an old image that was used in a userbox on Japanese wikipedia. It has already been replaced by a new image Image:Vipper icon .png (created and uploaded by User:Sirooziya) and so is no longer needed. The old image was created by myself. Hermeneus 13:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ffionphort

[edit]

Misspelt category name. I have replaced it with Category:Fionnphort. --JeremyA 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bronze-zhou1.jpg

[edit]

Photography of a threedimensional piece of art creates a new seperate copyright of the photographer. The autor, who uploaded this pic, obviously didn't know this. So we have no licence for the image and can assume, that it has been lifted from some website. --h-stt 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not true. Photography of an uncopyrightable object which is against a blank background carries no artistic input, and is considered uncopyrightable under US copyright law. This has been checked with a copyright lawyer. - Amgine 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is not supported by en:Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp., which is (IANAL) the most important verdict by an US federal court on the issue at hand. --h-stt 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if uploader is not the creator. Image seems to be nicked from here. --Fb78 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fb78. No evidence that the object is "uncopyrightable". Thuresson 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:10mbd.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 01:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Screen75.jpg

[edit]

screenshot of a copyrighted computer program. fair use --Shizhao 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shizhao, I think you don't need to write here, pictures wich are 100% copyrighted or fair use, you can write {{fair use}} (as I did) and an administrator will remove it, thanks to Category:Copyvio_-_January_2006. YolanC 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stallone.jpg

[edit]

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media. see en:Image:Stallone.jpg--Shizhao 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cover

[edit]

Image:AngelabettisToolbox.jpg Image:Angelabettismay.jpg Image:Mylogo.png --Shizhao 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William Cranch.jpg

[edit]

The first version only, dated 21:52, 16 September 2005, of Image:William Cranch.jpg is not free. See w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/archived removal requests and [39]. A company significantly retouched this old photograph, and claims copyright on the cleaned version. I have uploaded the uncleaned version, which is public domain. User:dbenbenn 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Water Bottle did it, so nothing more needs to be done. User:dbenbenn 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bart starr.jpg

[edit]

Magazinecover--Shizhao 04:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:03-1-.jpg

[edit]

copyvio--Shizhao 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnRutter.jpg

[edit]

copyvio----Shizhao 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NewCaledoniaFlag.svg

[edit]

Redundant to Image:Flag of New Caledonia.svg. The one which follows naming conventions should be used. —Nightstallion (?) 07:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US 682 shield.png

[edit]

I had uploaded this image of a U.S. Route that doesn't exist for use as an example, but have decided to go with one that actually exists. No longer used anywhere. --SPUI 07:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --EugeneZelenko 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yamahalogo groß.gif

[edit]

logo, fair use, not GFDL--Shizhao 08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --EugeneZelenko 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Flag of Curacao.svg

[edit]

I uploaded this image not knowing it already existed under a different name. It is safe to delete. --Denelson83 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Balamand.jpg

[edit]

This image has been taken from [40] where it has been put under a Creative Commons license [41] which prohibits commercial usage and modifications of the original image. This is, however, in violation of Commons:Licensing which explicitly requires that commercial use of the work must be allowed. --AFBorchert 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It seems that many (all?) of the users other uploads are also noncommercial ... User:dbenbenn 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aborigeni australiani bandiera.png

[edit]

Obsoleted by Image:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg. -- Denelson83 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asturies_flag.png

[edit]

Uploaded by me. Redundant, a new svg version it's aviable at Image:Flag of Asturias.svg.

January 28

[edit]
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:K522_multitonality.PNG

[edit]

REASON -- Made Redundant by Image:K522 multitonality.png (note lowercase "png"). This newer version includes necessary labels for the parts. Rainwarrior 12:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS -- The horn part is not labelled, and while an experienced score-reader might be able to guess its correct transposition, due to the example's exceptional nature as an example of polytonality the transposition should not rightly be omitted. Rainwarrior 12:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reasons.
  1. The parts you have written are in English. Commons files must be available for use in many different wikipedias. This file is presently in use at the Italian, Korean, Greek and Hungarian wikipedias. Therefore this file is not redundant.
  2. This type of file is better made into an SVG file. I've replaced the redundant tags with a {{ConvertToSVG}} tag. Bas parler voir 12:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'd actually be willing to create SVG versions for each of these languages if I could be given a list of instrument names in those languages. I would make the point that without the labels, the diagram is essentially incorrect, and in published scores instrument names are never actually translated. The original published score this is quoting from would have certainly have had the names in Italian, actually, and had I realized this appeared in other languages I would have used the more standard Italian names instead. The point, however, of my revision was not to add instrument names, but to clarify the pitch of the top line, which basically should be clear now to anyone who can read a score even though the specific instrument names are in English.
What I'm saying is that, for the moment, a correct example in English is still probably a lot more understandable than an incorrect example with no language. I'll get on creating multi-lingual SVG versions though. Rainwarrior 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that once the image is available in SVG format, it's a simple matter to perform new translations as needed, so arguably it's not necessary to preemptively do them all unless you really want to. Deco 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kept--Shizhao 11:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

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

Category:Food Photos

[edit]

User:Jat has recently started trying to subcategorize Category:Photos. I agree that something should be done about that category, but I don't think this is the right thing. We already have Category:Food with lots of subcategories. Surely we shouldn't start creating a copy of the whole category tree within Category:Photos? User:dbenbenn 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not - we should have a category for photos and one for food, which we do. In the future Mediawiki may add support for category intersection, until then we shouldn't be doing it by hand except perhaps in cases of extreme need, because it creates a significant maintenance overhead. Deco 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Photos also should be emptied and then deleted, shouldn't it? --Teofilo 11:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the category Photos was/is overpopulated, there was a request posted to move photos from there, and no one was doing anything about it. I decided to try making it easier for people to search for relevant photographs. It was hell trying to search for anything in category Photos. You forget that food photos were already posted in the overpopulated cat:photos and to me it seems that only way (at least for now) is do move them by hand one by one. anyway with so many people ready to criticise without doing anything themselves, I am staying away. User:Jat

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

Image:Landesbibliothekszentrum_RLP.jpg

[edit]

The picture shows the logo of a library-related institution at the building of the Rhinland Palatinate state library at Koblenz. The logo is not copyrighted (lack of originality/Schöpfungshöhe) and if it would so the photograph qualifies for German Panoramafreiheit. Commons is generally logo-sceptic. If this logo can be kept some other similar logos might be have a chance here. If not this will be have implications for the image upload in the de Wikipedia ... --Historiograf 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not deleted

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

Olympic flags

[edit]

According to Chapter 1, rule 7, section 2 of the Olympic Charter, the Olympic flag is a copyrighted property of the International Olympic Committee. But then Bye-law to rules 7-14, paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 restricts commercial use of the flag, which violates Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Zzyzx11 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Photos of persons have also restricted commercial use and so on. The protection of the Olympic flags is - speaking for Germany - a new immaterial law sui generis not a copyright protection. --Historiograf 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How sad that the IOC implicitly forbids Wikimedia from using "its" symbols. Denelson83 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I vote to keep. Denelson83 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what will happen to the flags of specific NOC's, like Chinese Taipei and the United German flag used in the 1950's? Zach (Smack Back) 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may claim copyright over the flag, but they can't stop people from creating images of it. The flag is permanently displayed in publically accessible areas in countries which allow an exception to copyright for images taken of such objects. Since an image of the flag when that flag is flying from in a publically accessible area is not a copyvio in most countries then derivative works of such images, ie the files above, are not copyvios. The only area that Commons would have to worry is trademark infringement and I don't see how encylopedia articles infringe any IOC trademarks. David Newton 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept

Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cycoward

[edit]

Not relevant to Wikimedia Commons and also "non notable". Korg 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Thirteen

[edit]

Not relevant to Commons. Korg 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Dessous front.jpg

[edit]

REASON : Copyright violation Manchot 06:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ok for me, looks so, just nuke it and the cropped derivative Image:Dessous front cropped.jpg also, -- Test-tools 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]

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

Image:Nefertiti 30-01-2006.jpg

[edit]

User claims to have taken image but I'm almost certain I've seen this exact image before. If anyone can confirm or even find the exact source, then we should quickly delete. Bas parler voir 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a web search I figure that all Nefertiti bust shots look the same in hindsight. Bas parler voir 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crane Images

[edit]

Reason: uploader's request (possible copyright violation). Bukvoed 10:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please code these images with correct template: ({{Deletion request}}) Bas parler voir 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added the template. Bukvoed 09:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleted--Shizhao 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ichthyosaur.jpg

[edit]

Better/bigger version available Image:Ichthyosaur fossil.jpg --Nowic 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lazistan vandalism

[edit]

This is a homemade flag of a nonexisting state used for vandalism in de:Lasistan or the flag of Saudi-Arabia with black instead of green, respectively. --Lixo 11:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Bas parler voir 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Getúlio Vargas.jpg

[edit]

== Licensing == {{PD-because|it's a Brazilian Government picture}})

Brazilian government work is not public domain by default. --Patrick-br msg 13:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dessous front.jpg

[edit]

& Image:Dessous_front_cropped.jpg Copyright violation. From the discussion page: "This picture is coming from Aubade catalog (march 2005), and there is no authorisation to license it under CC-BY-SA. Please, also note that the flickr account has been closed." --Baikonur 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please code these images with correct template: ({{Deletion request}}) Bas parler voir 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it comes from http://www.aubade.com/lecons/leconim.php?im=63&x=300&y=425 YolanC 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ack, it seams that it original comes from there. -- Test-tools 07:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable replacement Image:Lingerie flickr.jpg -- Test-tools 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dessous topless.jpg

[edit]

Seems to be a copyright violation. It has the same style as the images above and was uploaded to flickr by the same user. Maybe it can be found on http://www.aubade.com/lecons/ but I don't feel like searching around there. --Baikonur 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please code this images with correct template: ({{Deletion request}}) Bas parler voir 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is maybe copyrighted, but I don't think it comes from aubade. YolanC 22:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Market data

[edit]
Formerly December 16, made current.

Delete all images in this cat except images in the subcat Category:Market data/inuse. The subcat contains all images still in use by the Wikinews:Market Data project, all others are outdated and not used anymore. There may be several hundreds more images by MarketDataBot (many of them not categorized but also outdated). The images with category set by the bot will need to be checked for usage although any image below timestamp 20050726 20626 UTC should be outdated, too. --Denniss 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a delete bot around? That seems like alot! -- WB 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete all - 54MHz 04:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
many pic, bot delete? --Shizhao 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem as if the MarketDataBot has contributed anything since July 2005. "Do not delete" images should be verified and if they are in fact, not in use, all of these should be deleted. Bas parler voir 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checked usage. Still in use although Wikinews information is severely outdated. Bas parler voir 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete

To be deleted... Including this discussion in Village Pump. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them were apparently deleted by hand. I just finished deleting the last 1900 of them with a bot. I kept archives of the ones I deleted, just in case. User:dbenbenn 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

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

Image:Taumelscheibe 142 vdb.png

[edit]

This image must not be used commercially, see description page. -- Lue 09:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author. - The wrong license was chosen. This image CAN be deleted - a new version [[Image:Taumel_142_b.png]] was created and will be used in relevant wikipedia articles. --Burn t 11:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Taumel_142_b.png is the same image. Same problem. No explicit permission by the original photographer for commercial use. -- Lue 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, license was updated for Image:Taumel_142_b.png and Image:Taumelscheibe 142 vdb.png is now requested for speedy deletion. -- Lue 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Logos uploaded recently

[edit]
Company logos. I found them while doing welcomes and browsing the User Creation Log Bas parler voir 12:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Feministas.jpg

[edit]

Reads (if my Spanish is correct) "No commercial use" hense is a copyvio. Bas parler voir 13:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cesar Lattes.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. Source: [42] © 1994-2004 Universidade Estadual de Campinas. --Patrick-br msg 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marked {{No source}}. In use at pt and fr. Should be delinked before deletion. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Winston Churchill 1941 photo by Yousuf Karsh.jpg

[edit]

See w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh, which states

"It turns out that this was first published on the cover of Life, a U.S. magazine, in 1941 or 1942. (See e.g. [43].) There, too, a check whether the copyright was renewed would be needed, but it would be a surprise if it wasn't. That image is most probably also still copyrighted."

Apparently the photograph is public domain in Canada, but not in the United States. User:dbenbenn 22:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Fb78 12:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/01&oldid=634699897"