Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] June

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/01 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/02 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/03 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/04 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/05 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/06 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/07 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/08 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/09

[edit] June 10

[edit] File:Poacher.ogg

Self recorded, but probably copyrighted. It's like scanning an copyrighted image and uploading is as own work. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Melody is traditional, performance is too old or too simple to be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, but we have to deleted voice at the end. I know it's simple, but still copyrighted. We can't have it like we can't have a simple songs on Commons. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone singing a simple song is a performer, but this is just a machine putting out numbers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
But somebody had to record it first, doesn't matter if phonemes or whole words. That's how it works. If it's ok then we can record speech synthesizer results. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please keep it, how can this be copyrighted if the radio station officially never existed? As long as it's self recorded, it should be OK. /Michal (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Official or not, it doesn't matter. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment and weak Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - simple tones from the beginning do not carry any original authorship or interpretation, therefore can be treated as "PD-trivial", however the female voice itself, imo, is some kind of "performance", therefore either file should be trunctate to contain only starting tune or deleted. Masur (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright paranoia. Anyway, "performances" have a shorter duration of copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. For a start, I don't think 5 letters/numbers of synthesized speech are eligible for copyright protection. Secondly, according to one of the external links, this is only a short snippet of the full broadcast, included in the article in order to complement and enhance it in a way that can't be done any other way (say, by recording your own version), so would probably be fair use. Also, I think you'd have a hard time proving that anybody even owns this or any copyright exists on it at all - is it wise to delete something useful due to copyright paranoia, when nobody can or will ever prove there is even an owner? Not a lawyer though, so hey. Nick Collision (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 11

[edit] File:NJ Somerset Laxminarayan Dev & Lord Ranchhodrai.jpg

Request by author: duplicate of File:Laxminarayan.jpg

DR formatted by Sv1xv (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Grandesbandas

User:Grandesbandas's images are self-promoting. Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gravestone_poem_arp.jpg

20th century poem; texts are not included in COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a work of artistic craftsmanship? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The headstone, but not the poem. It does not make any difference, I think, whether a poem is written on a piece of paper or on a slab of stone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Do not stand at my grave and weep is a poem, written by Mary Elizabeth Frye. Although of disputed origin until later in her life, Mary Frye's authorship was confirmed in 1998 after research by Abigail Van Buren, a newspaper columnist, [1] Galoubet (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
She never published or copyrighted the poem, what does that mean for its status? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Almost nothing, under British law. A later publisher might gain a 20 year publication right, but I think it should count as published, given how many copies have been distributed. It is clear she expected the work to be widely distributed and does not object to its distribution, but for Commons this is not free enough. What if someone were to make an offensive hardcore rap version? Or use it in a video advocating against abortion? When you pose questions like that you see just how free Commons requires works to be, and without affirmation in writing the person does not reserve rights in all cases then we must delete. -Nard the Bard 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(40).jpg

Copyrighted movie, including the whole category, 84 images: Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). The copyright notice is right in the middle of the image. Yann (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Does the film's copyright apply to the trailer ? --Coyau (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Liz Taylor 1963.jpg states: "This image is a screenshot made by myself from a public domain movie's trailer. Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. licence : http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright". I don't know whether the claim is valid, though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Issues:
  • 1) The image is currently tagged as PD-US-no notice which is clearly wrong. However I note that the uploader merely tagged it as the generic "PD" still in use on Commons in 2005. User:Red devil 666 changed license to "PD-US-not renewed" in April 2006, which for all I know may be correct. User:Rossrs changed the license to "PD-US-no notice" in July 2007, which a simple look at the image proves is obviously false. Image may or may not be PD, but if so reason and reference needs stating.
  • 2) User:Yann wishes a broader evaluation regarding all images in Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). I suggest a new deletion request be filed including all of them; at present there is no notice on the category nor the other images in it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Deleted. Tagged as "no notice", but a clear copyright notice is seen. No judgement on other images in the category; film trailer might be PD-US-not renewed (someone care to research?) -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

On reviewing the image history and two messages on my User talk page [2], I have decided that closing this as delete on narrow grounds of false license was not appropriate to the situation. While I contend my deletion for reason for false license was technically correct, it did not address additional issues which need to be settled regarding this and related images. Additional discussion added above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember changing the information for this image, or why I would have done it, but I obviously did and it's obviously wrong. The only information I'm aware of that gives any explanation regarding the general copyright status for old film trailers is this which is from a copyright clearance house. Their contention is that old trailer were either not copyrighted (ie no copyright notice attached to the trailer at the time of its first publication which preceded the independently copyrighted film), or were released with a notice and not renewed. They state that industry custom is to accept that trailers released up to 1972 have not been renewed, ("In any event, industry custom and practice has been to use trailers prior to 1972 based on the above information"), and that a "blanket" copyright status applies to any released after 1976. I've also read somewhere else that movie studios renewed the copyright for most of their films (with some exceptions) but they didn't see any value in the trailers which were not expected to be used again, and therefore either overlooked renewing them or intentionally chose not to. I can't find a source for that, and perhaps someone else might know something about that. It seems logical, but it's clearly not something we can put any faith in without some additional supporting evidence. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this useful information. My questions regarding these images are
  1. Do they come from the trailer or from the film? The link you mention says The trailers did not contain copyright notices, or there is a copyright notice here. Their copyright was therefore registered.
  2. Was the copyright renewed? I think we have to assume that it was unless we have the proof that it wasn't. Yann (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
1. They were all uploaded at the same time by the same editor, so it's reasonable to assume that they came from the same source. Several images contain text that would be used in a trailer but not in the film, so again it's reasonable to believe they came from the trailer. No doubt about it - there is a copyright notice.
2. Was it renewed? I don't know. Using the industry standard of considering trailers of this period to be not subject to copyright due to expiration and non-renewal is an assumption rather than proof. A search of the copyright data per [3] shows nil result. Does the absence of a copyright listing for this film trailer indicate that it wasn't renewed? I don't know. It doesn't seem definitive. Where do we go from here? Rossrs (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • at 1:Yes , all these pics are from the trailer: http://www.archive.org/details/Cleopatratrailer1963 And yes, there is a copyright notice, not as usual in the end of the trailer, but in the middle (at 2'22")
  • at 2: Something for native speakers, only a few pages
1) 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%......
2) How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work?
3) How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed? . Mutter Erde 78.51.199.130 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Was this resolved in any way? There's a similar issue with this image at a Feature Article Review on the English Wikipedia. The trailer has a copyright notice, though it's unlikely it was renewed. trailer mahanga (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 12

[edit] File:Smetana_-_Bartered_Bride_overture.ogg

We have {{PD-US-record}}, so effectively we only need to bother with the record's PD in its source country. According to w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Sound recordings, in the case of a sound recording, we have to consider the copyrights for:

  • composer
  • texter
  • performer
  • producer

Smetana is long dead; hence composer-wise, it is PD. Texter is not applicable, I think. Producer is Columbia 7314; a corporate entity is equivalent to an anonymous body, so by UK laws, it is PD since it has been more than 70 years since publication (1930). However, the performers are the London Philharmonic Orchestra and Sir Hamilton Harty. Harty died in 1941, and thus the performer's (conductor's) copyright persists until the end of 2011 (70 years pma). This recorded performance is still not in UK public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, that's nonsense: In the EU, including Britain, sound recordings begin losing copyright *from time of recording*, and the timescale is 50 years, with a proposal to increase to 70. In any case, the composer's out of copyright, the performer's copyright begins from time of recording, and so this is PD. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed as PD Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:PCBSD.1.0.KDE.png

Copyrighted screenshot. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please review the Image

  • I think that I have added the correct licenses

PCBSD.1.0.KDE.png--Rbuj (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Unsure. Maybe the software is free under BSD licenses, but what about the photo? Is it also published under the BSD license or any other free license? Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Who is the photographer, did he agree to the licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The desktop Picture (/usr/local/share/wallpapers/pcbsd-default.png) does not include any information about her copyright. I supposed it's copyrighted by PC-BSD... Because this seems to have been edited by PC-BSD --Rbuj (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept, as it is the default wallpaper and it includes "PC-BSD" it probably falls under PC-BSD license. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 13

[edit] File:Img_medal_xlg_British_Colombia_Order.gif

Description states that the image is protected by Canadian Crown copyright? -- Deadstar (msg) 19:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but it was used in accordance with the terms set by the crown: Order of British Columbia Copyrighted This image is protected by Canadian Crown copyright. Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

Robert Prummel (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't that mean (or it may mean as those terms may include) that it should be used non-commercially only? -- Deadstar (msg) 13:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:8FamousEnglishPeople.jpg

incompatible compilation of GFDL-only and at least one cc-only image, at least one of the source images has been deleted as noncommercial Denniss (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The GFDL file is not an issue, since it now also under a CC licence. The problem is File:Damon Albarn2.jpg, but given that many projects use File:8FamousEnglishPeople.jpg, it would be better to replace that problematic photo with another one, rather than delete the whole thing. Pruneautalk 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 14

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

[edit] File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg

Possibly not PD due to the fact that the entire Coat of Arms was updated in 1957 and in 1994. The shield's colour seems to have been updated in 1957 and the shield's dimensions were updated in 1994. --Nat (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I think the substantial updates were to the other parts of the coat of arms. See http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/coatArmsCanada.htm. Color change and new dimensions (at least for simple shapes like shields) usually do not attract new copyright protection. Rocket000 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but derivative works are subject to the original term of copyright, are they not? I mean that's why they passed the w:Mickey Mouse Protection Act, because if the first Mickey Mouse cartoon went PD, then Mickey himself would be PD, even though today's Mickey Mouse is a derivative of the original. Eleland (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Non-trivial derivatives always attract new copyright protection regardless of the copyright status of the original. If the original is public domain, the derivative can be licensed any way one wishes. There is no copyright they can even be subject to. The question is, is this a derivative of the original or the new work (which logically means both)? Rocket000 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The maple leafs are described as "proper" (see [4]), so they can be of any green, yellow, red or brown shade. Other changes after 1921 don't affect the shield but elements of the full achievement outside the shield (crown, motto). Sv1xv (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This would be covered under Canadian Copyright Law. And this wikipedia:en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg would set presidence. According to the Wikipedia version of this image, the licensing section of the page states: "The present design of the arms of Canada was drawn by Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, office of the Governor General of Canada, and faithfully depicts the arms described in the words of the Royal Proclamation dated November 21, 1921. The present design was approved in 1994. This image is copyright © 1994, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada [5] and is held under Canadian Crown Copyright. In addition, the Trade Marks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use [6]. To obtain permission to use the arms of Canada commercially, see the previous link.". As such, this image should be deleted on the basis that this image is still under Crown Copyright and therefore any use of this image must be used under a fair use rationale which is not allowed on Commons. Nat (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Please don't mix copyright issues with usage restrictions (trademark or other). The latter are covered by {{Insignia}} and do not affect the copyright status. As such the copy on Commons should be deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I am not mixing the two up. I'm am just merely pointing out that the exact same image on wikipedia is listed with a {{Non-free symbol}} and not a PD symbol. Nat (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You do, when you refer to the Trade Marks Act. In Wikipedia there is a combination template {{Non-free symbol}} which works for non-free flags and other insignia, that't why they list the trademark restriction. This does not apply here, as all images on Commons must be free in terms of copyright only, otherwise they are not acceptable at all. Sv1xv (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I am not. It states very clearly in the wikipedia version of this image: "This image is copyright © 1994, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and is held under Canadian Crown Copyright.". Nat (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Please try to understand, I don't refer to the 1994 copyright. I just try to keep deletion requests clear of trademark issues. I'll let some other admin decide if there is a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Can someone please come to a conclusion about this file? The deletion notice has been up for three months now, and has been causing confusion at Wikipedia, where the file is used quite prevalently. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If the shield dimensions are the main problem, I will just fix it to the 1957 specs now and it should be go to go. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1957 shield up now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Update

With the 1957 version of the shield up, I deleted the other reversions. Now just waiting for this to close. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With the present version being unquestionably in the public domain, I close this request as kept. Rama (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 15

[edit] File:Oberi_Okaime.jpg

Copyvio from http://www.rbardalzo.narod.ru/4/oberi.html RedAndr (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you copyright letters? Jolly Janner (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bad English. It's not copyvio. I has correct some mistakes in file from this site and I think so now it is my own work.--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So what the hell copyright can be reserved by the alphabet image?--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Why you can not copyright letters? If you created an alphabet it is your copyrighted artwork. Note that even fonts are copyrighted. --RedAndr (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If the letters were created over 100 years ago then copyright would've expired. Just to clarify for latin-alphabet users like myself, what is the image of? What are these letters? When were they invented? Jolly Janner (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Oberi Okaime has been created in 1928—1931 years in Nigeria, and descripted in 1947. I think so no copyright reserved by this writing.--Ole Førsten (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It was created less than 100 years ago, about 80 years. Author or authors of the letters most likely lived at least 10 years after that, so we do not have 70 years after death of the last one. You can read about these letter for example here: [7] --RedAndr (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Life in Africa was very short, and author can die before 1939.--Ole Førsten (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We can't be certain of that. If you cannot prove the author's death was before 1939 then the file should be deleted. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody knows name of author!--Ole Førsten (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not the author of the photo as such, but who or more importantly when was this alphabet created? Jolly Janner (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Adams in «African Journal» not said it. he wrote, so this alphabet was created by Oberi Okaime Christian Mission, but after Adams haven't new information about this script.--Ole Førsten (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it could not be created before 1926, when this religious group was founded. --RedAndr (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This alphabet is in Public Domain because it has been created before 1939 and author is unknown.--Ole Førsten (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You should write this on the file's description page. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I Wrote!--Ole Førsten (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, it's better now. Just two suggestions. Firstly, write source, the link I cited above with the picture you used to created yours. Secondly, could you redraw image in vector or, at least, png format for better representation? --RedAndr (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Then delete the .jpg after? Jolly Janner (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --RedAndr (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Converted to PNG: File:Oberi Okaime.png. Now this file can be deleted.--Ole Førsten (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It's PD-Text; note that fonts aren't copyrighted in the US, unless they're computer programs like TTF fonts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Uastadium.JPG

Copyright Violation JEN9841 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. by High Contrast Yann (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Mamíferos.jpg

I'm from English Wikipedia, where this is the lead image for the mammal article, and I've posted editorial reasons for the image's replacement there. The issues, however, go deeper than that, and I realize the editorial reasons are inapplicable here. The four constituent images are:

Of these, the lion and the hedgehog pose no issue, because the terms of their licenses are permissive to the extent that combining them does not pose an issue. However, the giraffe is only under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 and the bat is only under GFDL 1.2 or later. These are both "GPL-style" licenses that require derivative works to be licensed under that license only. The goal of making sure that derivatives have the same permissions would be thwarted if one could license a derivative under the "GPL-style" license or another license, whichever you choose. One would need only to make a trivial derivation, place the derivative under the disjunction of the "GPL-style" license and a permissive license, then use the permissive license to bypass the "copyleft" restriction. In essence, this composite violates both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA terms, because each requires that the derivative be licensed only under its terms, making them incompatible. Barring a relicensing, this issue is intractable and fatal. I realize license compatibility can be thorny, but we can't leave something alone that blatantly violates the licenses. deranged bulbasaur 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept. GFDL relicensing means cc-by-sa-3.0 is (only) valid license.Nilfanion (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Nikolai Rutchenko nazi.jpg

The author — Alexander Novikov («Russkoe Zarubeshe»), the file has not EXIF, the resolution is low.

Site «Russkoe Zarubeshe»: «Все материалы представленные на данном сайте принадлежат Библиотеке-фонду "Русское Зарубежье". Их использование без согласия владельца Запрещено!» («All materials, appearing on this site, belong to the Library-Foundation «Russkoe Zarubeshe». Their use without the consent of the owner is prohibited!»).

See also. Clarissy. 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Big Red B-17 Photo.jpg

The uploader claimed the file is the work of the uploader on this page, but on the english wikipedia the uploader acknowledges that someone else created the picture. I asked at the Village pump and was advised to nominate for deletion. -- User:A new name 2008 Completing incomplete deletion request on behalf of another user. p.p.KTo288 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Further information with regards this file can be found at en:User talk:CrayZatseA. The file is of an image taken by the uploader's uncle, although attribution is not presently strictly correct, this is it not something that cannot be quickly and easily corrected.KTo288 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Current source as "Own work by uploader" is incorrect for those pictures and needs to be corrected. Assuming the uncle is the photographer, I would use:
   * source: Photograph from collection of Richard Bailey (CrayZatseA's uncle)
   * author: Richard Bailey
   * permission: {{tlx|PD-author|Richard Bailey}} or {{PD-heirs}}
But, if possible OTRS might be needed. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just Delete the god dam thing. This Photo is my personal photo given to me by my Uncle Richard Bailey. I have no idea who took it or what copyrights some one has on it. CrayZatseA (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It might be also safe to say that the author was {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. --Jarekt (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That would not be correct, since in 1944 when this aircraft was shot down there was no US Air Force. This {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} would be the correct one, if we knew the photographer was operating in an official capacity when the picture was taken. If the photographer was using own personal camera and it was not his job to take pictures that would not be correct. We have no idea who took the picture or in what capacity it was taken. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Big_Red_Crew.jpg

The uploader said on this page that this is the work of the uploader, but on the editor's english wikipedia talk page the editor acknowledges that the work was created by someone else. I asked at the Village pump and was advised to nominate for deletion. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Further information with regards this file can be found at en:User talk:CrayZatseA. The file is of an image taken by the uploader's uncle, although attribution is not presently strictly correct, this is it not something that cannot be quickly and easily corrected.KTo288 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] File:Ashley_Greene.jpg

Promotional photo, can be found all over using Tineye or Google images Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ashley_Greene.jpg

Questionable licensing info; user claims ownership of the image yet provided an outside website as its source. Andrea (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Blatant violation of copyrights, see EXIF data. --Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dardanie dans les Balkans.jpg

No information about the source and the author of the image 07:34, 19 June 2009 Alexikoua


This map wrongfully includes non illyrian areas to illyria.Also Taken from a website site
  • Parts of Thrace
  • Paeonia
  • Corfu
  • Epirus
  • Part of Thessaly
  • Part of Macedon
  • Part of Aetolia
  • Part of Acarnania
  • Almost reaches Boetia

Megistias (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep (if the proper source and licence are provided), otherwise Delete (but only because of licence problem) - Regarding the image accuracy issue, these parts of Greece mentioned by Megistias were inhabited by ancient Pelasgians and theory that connects Pelasgians with Illyrians is well known. In another words, map reflects theory that Pelasgians also were Illyrians and that is valid historical view for presentation in Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
However, I think that source and author of the image should be further clarified, but there is no reason to delete this image only because of historical view that is represented in it. PANONIAN (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thats Albanian nationalism and revisionism.There is no such thing out of utra-nationalist theorists.In Pelasgians article this is what is noted,nothing else.

The article Pelasgians,Albanian nationalists states "In 1854, an Austrian diplomat and Albanian language specialist, Johann Georg von Hahn, identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian". This theory is rejected by modern archaeological and historical circles, however it has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists.[62]". Megistias (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

now we going somewhere: 1. it is nice that you agreed that theory exist, 2. I would not agree that theory is rejected - theory is only not proved (but it is not dissaproved as well) since modern science do not know much about Pelasgian language, and 3. do we really talk about Albanian nationalism or about Greek nationalism? - i.e. is the fact that Epirus is currently administered by the Greek state a valid reason that any proved or theoretical history of Albanians or Illyrians from that region should be deleted? I am neither Albanian or Greek and, thus, I really do not care about modern Albanian-Greek political disputes, but I really do not support any kind of censorship - Wiki projects are here for all theories to be presented and it is not up to any Wiki user to decide which theory should be presented and which should not, especially in Wikimedia Commons. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is like making a map showing that the French conquered England during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Year_War 100 year war.Its not supporting anything,its just propaganda.
  • Uploader did not make it
  • No sources accept this
  • This is copied from an albanian nationalist site.Megistias (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I said, problem with the source of this specific image is a valid issue, but regarding question whether other sources support info in that map or not, I have a source published in Belgrade in 1970 (thus, certainly not an Albanian nationalist source) in which entire Epirus and most of Macedonia are presented as territories inhabited by Illyro-Thracian peoples. PANONIAN (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be talkin to yourself and ignoring me.Also Communist historians had an eye for northen Greece since the dawn of Communism.Lets not waste anymore time here.This is rejectable and nationalisticMegistias (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can also find similar maps on Internet, for example this one: http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/mapsandcharts/aeg-map2.jpg or this one: http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/mapsandcharts/aeg-map1.jpg - you can see that these maps correspond with our map of Illyria and it is certainly not from nationalist Albanian or Communist Serbian web site. What territorial pretensions towards Greece owners of that web site might have? PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Those are maps of Ancient Greece and do not claim to be Illyrian=Ancient Greece or any of the sort.Megistias (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Repeating you denials changing nothing, the image is illegal.Why are you advocating this? No such theories are acceptable, check the WIKIPEDIA articles on Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
what I am advocating is a freedom of speech and freedom of presentation of opinions and ideas. as for Wikipedia articles written by you, they certainly cannot be used as original reference in this case. however, since this Illyria image has a problem with description of its source it will be probably deleted because of that, so I will not waste my free time here any more. PANONIAN (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules a bit better.Articles that are referenced are thus reliable.The map is made wrong against all modern historical and archeological finds and is based on Nationalistic theories(the only intention the map creation had is nationalistic the uploader probably knew nothing of it) that are rejectable and go against archeological work of thousands of scientists from all over the planet for decades.Megistias (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The myth of Pelasgians include all ancient Greeks to even Crete to Minor Asia and everywhere they were at.According to your "logic" this map should include all of ancient Greece and Illyria(but they were not Pelasgians not even in myth) and Rome since the Romans are connected in myth and Etruscans and perhaps more.And all those would be baptized Albanians.WOW.Megistias (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete All the above debate pro and contra the factual correctness of the map is quite irrelevant here; the only relevant issue for Commons is the copyright status. The base map from which this is derived has been uploaded here or on other Wiki projects various times, and its ultimate source and copyright status have always remained unclear. (It is, of course, most certainly not self-made. It might be PD-old, but we don't know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Dubious base image. --98.248.157.165 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 16

[edit] Vladimir Tatlin

Works by Talin:

COM:DW of works by Talin

w:Vladimir Tatlin died 1953, too late for PD-old, PD-Russia-2008 or PD-Ukraine. sугсго 07:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Mjk17

User:Mjk17 has uploaded a number of images related to the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. However, as is clear from the image description pages and notwithstanding "own work by uploader" claim, these images are attributable to parties such as Don Hunstein / Glenn Gould Foundation / Sony Classical, KPMB Architects, Sugino Studios, Scott Thornley + Company, Tom Arban and Q Studio Ltd, and these entities presumably own the copyrights. Absent confirmation from the copyright holders through COM:OTRS that these images can be used under a free license, they would appear to be copyvios. skeezix1000 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the images with the {{no permission}} template, which is perhaps what I ought to have done in the first place. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mjk17: all copyrights to the images on Royal Conservatory of Music are owned by Royal Conservatory who have given explicit permission to use them on Wikipedia. I think there is an issue with the way they have been categorized and uploaded but not with actual permissions. Please let me know how to proceed or recategorize the images or if you can upload the images on my behalf. The logo is trademarked of course but so is Coca-Cola's and there is a logo on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjk17 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

If the RCM has granted that permission, then you need to do one of two things: either provide us with a link to the statement on the RCM website that expressly freely licenses these images, or provide through COM:OTRS the written confirmation of the RCM that these images are freely licensed. There are instructions on the image description pages of each image explaining in further detail how to do this. As for the logo, it was deleted because it did not meet the requirements of {{PD-textlogo}} -- unlike the RCM logo, the Coca-Cola logo would appear to be in the public domain (according to the image description page). --skeezix1000 (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I see some of the images in question on the RCM website, but unless I am missing something, I can't see any indication that the images are licensed in accordance with Commons requirements. In fact, the words "Copyright 2009" appear at the bottom of every page. --skeezix1000 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Email received at OTRS:3204031, giving permission for cc-by-nc-nd. Obviously that is no good for us. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sierra_Leone.svg

Derivative of a Vector-images.com image ([8]) From [9] it is made clear that its "inspired" by the VI raster which is pretty muchthe definition of a derivative work. Should be mentioned that this version has been deleted before. Lokal_Profil 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Czy ktoś mi może sensownie wytłumaczyć dlaczego się przeczepiliście do tego pliku???????? Poznaniak (dyskusja) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as long as its not identical (+/- minor modifications) (and its not - even for a CoA its not) its not CV. And one cannot say that CoA is "derivative" cos whatever one draws its gonna be derivative of some other version of that CoA. CoAs rather do not allow for much "artistic spirit". And if u could only bother yourself and open that vector file and open raster and compare them... btw. as a intelectuall challenge - pls propose HOW to draw CoA to have it not accused of being "derivative of the VectorImage file" (and they have most CoA of world countries - does it mean that all our svg coa are "inspired"? They look the same!). Because, as I can see, "inspiration"="cv" for you. So if anything looks more or less (cos you dont bother to compare or ask how svg was created) like VIm. raster its gonna be derivative? Masur (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say it's not identical (+/- minor modifications)? And as regards to "CoAs rather do not allow for much artistic spirit" thats the exact opposite of the truth. CoAs are normally defined by text and any (heraldically correct) interpretation of that text is a valid graphical representation of the CoA. Although I don't doubt that the code (and the way the SVG files were created) are very different this sadly has no effect on the copyright issue. If the end result looks the same then copyrightwise it's a derivative. And this is why a svg file can be derivative of a raster and vice verse. /23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As an example of different interpretations of the CoA see this and this (ignoring the fact that the bottom of the shield is missing). As long as the elements are there and arranged correctly the actual look of palm tree/lions/torch is up to the artist. Then I'll admit that the V-I.com image might itself be a derivative of the official CoA meaning they can't claim copyright in it. If this is the case though it still doesn't mean that our derivative of a derivative is free though. /Lokal_Profil 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:British passport 2002.jpg

Copyvio for breaking crown copyright with regards to UK government guidance as found here the pertinent section is 3.The Passport is subject to Crown copyright protection under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This means that it may not lawfully be reproduced without the prior permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), an official who as Queen’s Printer and Queen’s Printer for Scotland manages Crown copyright on behalf of Her Majesty under the terms of Letters Patent. HMSO’s Information Policy Division administers Crown copyright on behalf of the Controller. For policy information regarding other ways you can copy the Passport please see section 8. --KTo288 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of this policy as it applys to the wiki projects can be found at a local en wiki version of a similar file at en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg. As always there is no fair use on Commons.KTo288 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep en:Crown copyright applies to the royal arms design for only 50 years and the design is more that 50 years old while the text is ineligible for copyright. The en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg mentioned above is improperly used as non-free. However, this British passport is not freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If I read you rightly, your argument is essentially the de minimis argument in reverse, dividing the image into its component parts, and claiming that individual elements are ineligible for copyright, although ingenious I think the logic is faulty. Unlike commercial organisations the main interest of Crown copyright is not to protect the government from commercial loss through the exploitation of its copyrights, but to prevent potential counterfeiting and the appearance that the British government is endorsing a particular point of view. I cannot see how the line This means that it may not lawfully be reproduced without the prior permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) can be squared with Common's ethos of all files here of being free to use, free to modify and free to be distributed.KTo288 (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the same argument that was used against my nomination for deletion of an Irish passport at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eirepas.JPG which was kept. Ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem with this arguement is that it is contrived to allow the keeping of problematic files which are useful to Wiki users, then as a proper reflection of the copyright and legal status of such files. We have to remember that Commons files are not intended merely for the use of wikimedia contributers. Anyone can use Commons files for any purpose, I should be able to take any Commons file and use them for beer mats, posters, flyers or whatever took my fancy (as long as I give proper attribution and with the claim of PD I wouldn't even need to do this with this file), are you sure I can short circuit the assertion that the UK government has that it has the right as to how the likeness of the UK passport is used. Would Commons be willing to pay my court costs and any fines I may incur if I was to run off a couple of thousand note books, the size and colour of the UK passport with this design on the front and offer them for sale.KTo288 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can ask User:Nard the Bard, who made the original argument though he seems to be offline for a while. This issue most likely needs a wider airing. Ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep What else is there besides the Royal Arms that's copyrightable in this image? If it were a complex design, I would disagree with breaking it into pieces, but it's a PD image and a few ritual words that had no creativity in their choice. There is certainly non-copyright restrictions on these images, but the same is true of 1940s money, etc. It's simply not true as a general rule that you can use Commons files without thought; personality rights issues litter the archive, as do many other non-copyright restrictions. Commons isn't willing to pay your court costs if you were to run off a couple thousand note books with File:DoublePenetration.svg (NSFW) on the front and hand them out, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC

The file above that you've used as an example differs from File:British passport 2002.jpg in that the author has released it under GFDL, no such release is present with File:British passport 2002.jpg indeed the Crown claims copyright over it and all reproductions of the British passport and how it is used, however simple you may think the design may be claiming PD does not change this.
By the way was the above example meant to be offensive? If the point is that Commons permissions doesn't absolve reusers from acting with common sense, the arguement could have been made better without resorting to crudities.KTo288 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You've failed to establish that there is copyright on the cover; the copyright on the Royal Arms has long since expired, and there's nothing else on there covered by copyright. I'm sure the interior is copyrightable, but the cover isn't. The point is your complaint about running off a couple of thousand note books is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PikiWiki_Israel_2902_Ramat_Hasharon_Gallery_גלריית_חוצות_ברמת_השרון.JPG

Converting to normal deletion request. The speedy deletion request was "Original owner demands removal". CC licences are irrevocable, how are we going to deal with these kind of cases? Multichill (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete We have always made allowances for people to make mistakes. Sometimes the license is not clear, and sometimes people realize that they made a mistake in providing it to Commons, for all the net to view. I see no problem with deleting an image within a reasonable amount of time after its upload because someone made a mistake and didn't want it here after all. --Bastique demandez 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Info: the image was uploaded here at the Commons on May 30 and nominated for speedy on June 16, 2009. Lupo 10:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
So if I understand this correctly, the original uploader to pikiwiki who uploaded this did not own the rights? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pieter, why do you think so? uploader just regreted for publishing the image in commons or in public. Why do you think there is a issue of copyrights here? Netanel h (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All that I can see is that Pikiwiki tagged this as speedy. All that I can see is that Pikiwiki uploaded the image here. Who made the original upload? Was he/she the photographer? Who is demanding deletion? There is a lack of transparancy here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like those things are high on pikiwiki's priority list... Rocket000 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@Bastique: Yes, we're generally willing to provide courtesy deletions, but always with a reason. We need that at a minimum - if it's an insane reason then we can tell them "no" and otherwise we can say "OK that sounds reasonable, deleted"  — Mike.lifeguard 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Mike. We are prepared to delete if a good reason is given, but not otherwise. It's now for the uploader to state the reason. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also agree with Mike. A reason needs to be given. - Epson291 (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the situation here was a person who gave up his rights and then regretted doing so. I don't why, maybe someone told him he could sell this beautiful image, or maybe he just changed his mind. Since his request was not respected within a reasonable period of time, it is logical to assume that he gave up on this image. There is no reason to keep this debate open. Drork (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclio Fournier cards

These images are photographs of cards designed and printed by Naipes Heraclio Fournier SA. According to the company's website, the images on these cards are registered by Naipes Heraclio Fournier : Las imágenes de las mismas, registradas por Fournier, se han difundido por todo el mundo convirtiéndose en parte de la iconografía histórica nacional [10]. Thus, these photos would be derivative works of copyrighted designs. --Javier ME (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also those:

-Aleator (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, these are different issues. The ones linked by me were cards designed and printed by Naipes Heraclio Fournier SA. They seem to be modern versions of their classical designs, so we know something about the author, and the doubt is whether they are protected by copyright or not. The Catalan cards linked by Aleator have and older style. The ace of ors linked lacks the typical anouncement of "Heraclio Fournier. Vitoria" that real HF cards use to have. It even has a flag of the II Spanish Republic, so it's likely they were designed between 1931 and 1939. They lack, however, certain information on the author. --Javier ME (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Could be kept, founded on "de minimis". Alakasam (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 17

[edit] File:Blekthatsbetter.jpg

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jef_Aérosol.jpg

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Monsier_A.jpg

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Speedy_Graphito.jpg

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Monsieur_Chat_rue_Drevet.jpg

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Graphe_Miss_Tic_05381.JPG

No COM:FOP in France, no permission either. Coyau (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Miss.Tic's graffs are generally legals (COM:CB#Graffiti doesn't apply here unless illegality of the painting is demonstrated). --Coyau (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ai12.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fukui1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Inabaj5.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. And the author of this map of the guidance have finished a term of copyright.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cars modified to look like "Cars" characters

These may walk the line between useful objects (cars) and a copyrighted character design (Cars). However, it seems clear that the intent of these images is to "get around" the copyright violation that would prohibit a drawing (or computer-generated image) of the same characters. Based on that intent, I would have to say that these also violate the character copyrights. Powers (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete At least toys and shampoo bottle based on Cars characters were clearly marked as copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Sticking a pair of standard comic-type eyes on the whindshield of an otherwise unmodified factory suppied car violates copyright? You gotta be kidding... --Latebird (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That argument might apply to Sally but not to Mater or Lightning, which are clearly custom-designed. Powers (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. These are not "useful objects" as they are clearly not intended to be used as a car. This is copyrighted artwork and the photographs are a derivative of it, which would require permission. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cydia_Installer.png

As far as I know, the interface is copyrighted Yuval Y § Chat § 14:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, the entire app itself is simply an interface, and is not copyrighted. Brianreading (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a screenshot of a application. By the nominator's rationale would this mean all the thousands of screenshots on wikimedia ought to get removed? --86.4.56.126 19:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but perhaps change license to fair use (some portions of apple's interface included, but qualifies as fair use)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could somebody explain to me (not having an iPhone) which part of the image is a free screenshot (Cydia is GNU GPL according to the image description page?), and which is a screenshot of standard iPhone GUI, which is non-free? If the only non-free iPhone GUI captured on the image is the thin bar at the top, it could be cropped off and the image kept. If the non-free portion is greater, the image has to be deleted. No fair use on Commons! See also Commons:Screenshots. --Mormegil (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stalin kp06031953.jpg

The file was tagged as {{PD-RU-exempt}} due to the fact that in the USSR en:Komsomolskaya Pravda was published by en:Komsomol. In fact {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies to various documents, but a newspaper by no means can qualify as PD. --Blacklake (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File should remain. Newspaper has 4 official documents in it. Also at the time and place newspapers were nearly official documents 75.33.34.58 07:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are not only documents on this front page, but also a copyrighted photo. --Blacklake (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rockeness.png

Wikimedia Commons is not a free hosting Clarissy. 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep users are allowed to have a few personal out-of-scope files used on their user pages. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 :-)) The «user» has no contribution and ignore that Wikimedia Commons is not a forum: 1, 2. Clarissy. 09:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The_R.png

Wikimedia Commons is not a free hosting. Clarissy. 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the «user» has no contribution and ignore that Wikimedia Commons is not a forum: 1, 2. Clarissy. 10:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Mamta dhody

Uploaded by Mamta dhody (talk · contributions). All the images are derivative works with no possible free license. The first three are combination of various images, all non-free in most cases. The next four clearly appear to be scans of copyrighted work. LeaveSleaves 21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Added File:Dome of the Rock at Trimurti-India.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel). — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kozenjit1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing,and ｃopyright violation of map.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg コメント（Japanese/日本語）今回のケースのような略図が著作権の侵害となるかですが、知的財産高等裁判所「平成１７年（ワ）第１６２１８号損害賠償請求事件」（知的財産裁判例）の判決文によりますと、「一般に，地図は，地形や土地の利用状況等の地球上の現象を所定の記号によって，客観的に表現するものであるから，個性的表現の余地が少なく，文学，音楽，造形美術上の著作に比して，著作権による保護を受ける範囲が狭いのが通例である」と記しており、地図は著作権による保護を受ける範囲が狭いとしています。ではどのような場合、保護の対象となるか同判決文には「記載すべき公図情報の取捨選択が行われ」や「さらにまた，これらの情報の表現方法にも工夫が施されていると認められる」などが盛り込まれていれば著作性が肯定されています。同案内看板は、いずれの要件も当てはまらないと考えております。従いまして私の意見表明は、同判決文を参考に、略図は著作権による保護を受ける範囲外であると判断させていただきました。--ブレイズマン (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. This map is a simple task . So it's not seems to be copyrighted. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mikij4.jpg

Copyright violation of writing,and ｃopyright violation of map.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. This map is a simple task . So it's not seems to be copyrighted. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozenjit1.jpg a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 18

[edit] File:Flag of San Antonio, Texas.svg & File:San Antonio Texas Flag.png

The San Antonio flag was designed in 1935 by William Herring ([11]); while the original design had the words "SAN ANTONIO" and "TEXAS" superimposed, the base design (specifically including the line drawing of the Alamo) has not fallen into the Public Domain and should therefore still be under copyright. as there is no evidence it was published without such notice or not renewed by its city or state. This image, despite being made by a third party—Jecowa (talk · contributions)—is still a derivative of said copyrighted work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the specifications of these flags are in public domain (as being defined by law), so if someone creates an image of the flag from scratch, based only on those specifications, it should be okay. –Tryphon☂ 09:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that since the specifications for the flags are (probably) specifically defined by a given law or statute, that negates the inherent copyrights of said design? I've never seen that precedent; the specific designs for a great number of sub-national US flags (states, counties, cities) are defined by their respective laws, but are still protected by copyright. Do you have any evidence for either precedent or specific Texas or San Antonio law that exempts this particular design from nationally guaranteed copyrighting? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Hodevil01.jpg

Double with File:MunicipioAngoulême.jpg and not in use anymore --Jack ma (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The two pictures don't have the same source information. File:Hodevil01.jpg seems to be more accurate (uploaded in 2004 on fr.wikipedia, whereas the other one was uploaded in 2005 on it.wikipedia), so it needs to be sorted out before deleting either of them. –Tryphon☂ 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The actual year of uploading is not 2004 but 2007, when the other one is 2006. Also, the JPG size of MunicipioAngoulême.jpg is larger (what makes me say that it is more accurate; on the other hand, their sizes in pixels are the same). If Hodevil01.jpg is prooved to be more accurate, I'll switch my modifications. Jack ma (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the upload date of their respective claimed source (on Wikipedia, not Commons). The ultimate question is, who should be credited as the author in order to comply with the GFDL license (Jalava or Fluctuat)?. –Tryphon☂ 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say that File:Hodevil01.jpg is chronologically the first one (Jalava). Small in size, degraded jpeg. Then the contrast ("sharpness") was (very slightly) improved and saved with a good jpeg quality into File:MunicipioAngoulême.jpg (Fluctuat) for it:wiki. So the latter file is larger, but both images have the same medium quality if you take a closer look. Jack ma (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of the Louvre Pyramid

The Louvre pyramid is a copyrighted artwork by I.M. Pei (still alive). France has no freedom of panorama. However, French jurisprudence traditionally allows the representation of a copyrighted artwork if it is accessory compared to the main represented subject. For instance, a picture representing a Paris street with the en:Tour Montparnasse in the background was judged to be OK.

The problem here is to determine whether the pictures in category:Louvre Pyramid pass this test or not. Please note that many filenames actually mention the Pyramid. Also, I have excepted from this deletion request panorama pictures such as File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg or File:Louvre Paris Panorama.JPG. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Traduction en français : la pyramide du Louvre est une œuvre d'I. M. Pei, qui est encore en vie ; elle est donc protégée par le droit d'auteur. La France ne reconnaît pas la liberté de panorama, mais la jurisprudence admet la représentation d'une œuvre protégée quand celle-ci est accessoire au sujet représenté. Par exemple, les tribunaux ont considéré comme acceptable une photo représentant la rue de Rennes, à Paris, avec la tour Montparnasse dans le fond. La question ici est de savoir si ces photos entrent dans ce cadre ou non. On peut remarquer qu'un certain nombre des photos présentées ici comportent la mention « pyramide du Louvre » dans leur titre. Par ailleurs, j'ai ignoré les photos panoramiques comme File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg ou File:Louvre Paris Panorama.JPG.

File:Dsc07964.jpg

File:Dsc07965.jpg
FW Louvre3.jpg

File:FW Louvre3.jpg
FW Glaspyramide Louvre bei Nacht.jpg

File:FW Glaspyramide Louvre bei Nacht.jpg

File:Louvre 08.jpg

File:Louvre France.jpg
Louvre Pyramide .JPG

File:Louvre Pyramide .JPG
Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg

File:Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg
Louvre culture.jpg

File:Louvre culture.jpg
Louvre-Pyramide-Paris-France.jpg

File:Louvre-Pyramide-Paris-France.jpg

File:Parisienne2002-1.jpg

My two photographs document an ongoing street protest, not the Pyramid, which just happens to be there. In Paris, many public events take place in front of notable buildings, some of them modern and subject to architect's authorship. Refraining from reporting on them would create a chilling effect on free speech. David.Monniaux (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with David for the first two pictures. But what about the pyramid's interior (File:Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg) ? I don't feel this picture gives a view of Pei's work : the truss structure, as seen from the interior with a partial view, may be from numerous other architectural structures, not specificaly Pei's. This is perhaps the staircase wich is a copyrighted work ? This picture should be on a separate deletion request. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Louvre Pyramide .JPG Even thou the title of the Picture says it, this Picture shows an evening scene of the frensh national day on the place in Front of the Louvre. The Pyramid in only seen in part and there are several other topics on the Picture. Perhaps the Picture should be renaimed f.e. "Evening July the 14th in Front of Louvre"--WerWil (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Louvre France.jpg Keep, in my opinion the museum is the main subject on the photo here. There was a similar case under these circumstances. Turns out someone tried to sue postcard retailers over similar thing and were not successful (something like that, I didn't read into it much). Jolly Janner (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 19

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

[edit] PL voivodship

Logos of Polish voivodships are copyrighted. LeinaD dyskusja 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the actual list of files:
I don't know if {{polishsymbol}} covers this kind of images; how "official" are they? Can you explain why you think they're not official symbols?

Deleted. It's a logo for commercial/advertisment purposes, not defined by any act or official document. Masur (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How and by whom are they decided on if they are not official? --Slomox (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Valbovap.jpg

There are reasons to believe this image was scanned from a copyrighted book, probably "Boken om Valbo" (Valbo kommun, 1970). 130.240.63.53 12:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Santarosasul.jpg

The license is PD-self, but the source is an url [12]. At that website there is no information that the uploader here is the author. Ö 12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gochaku Castle 08.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Polimetla

All these images of User:Polimetla are previously published at [13]. Per the usual Commons:OTRS process, the user must verify that they are the creator of these previously-published images. However, the user was notified on June 11th to send OTRS permission for the article en:Brother Joseph Thamby, and failed to respond within 7 days. As such, we can expect no response either for an OTRS request for these images. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've just received word at en:User talk:Dcoetzee that OTRS is again in contact with the photographer. Several of these photos depict signs or plaques, and these will still have to be deleted, since India's freedom of panorama is modelled on the UK's and considers these graphic works, rather than works of artistic craftsmanship. They are not PD-text due to the long length of the text. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
We have to presume that this contact has failed. The individual was asked for verification of identity on June 20th and has not responded. OTRS:2009061110034988. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am the photographer for this pictures. What I need to do now?

Thank you, Bhavani

[edit] June 20

[edit] Images of AshGreen

The issue isn't new and has been raised in the past but nothing seem to happen or acted[14] (Can't find it in the archives). There is no content on RMIT's website stating that these are licensed as CC-BY or any other free-license infact http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=pm79apy2vaxx has some restrictions "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University." File:WMCCouncilMeeting1907.jpg IMO should have {{PD-Australia}} since it was taken in 1907 which is why I've not included this photo. Bidgee (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Some earlier uploads of mine, before I knew licensing in greater detail. Apologies.

File:Neii1dskosdn1.jpg was taken in 1956 (see: http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=u7drb3ohepdrz) so deletion is in order. I've changed the template of File:WMCCouncilMeeting1907.jpg to {{PD-Australia}}. AshGreen (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Traudlhead2.jpg

The image is scanned from a recent book, the "PD-because" reason is only an evasion of the problematic {{PD-Russia}}. The file does not fulfill any conditions required by the license templates PD-old (70 years pma) or PD-Russia-2008. Martin H. (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploader rather seems to have wanted {{PD-RU-exempt}}, which is indeed worth some consideration. --Latebird (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just fix the license to PD-RU-exempt. 189.122.133.178 06:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now it is still missing a source that justifies PD-RU-exempt in any way. --Martin H. (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ishiyamah1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jigenji5.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kenhonji1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Koriyamaj2.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持A part of the scenery. Stone walls where Maine was excavated. Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion.--ブレイズマン (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:汲平/maps of German towns

Maps made by 汲平 are suspected copyvios --汲平 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The maps on the page was drawn by tracing over images under copyright. One gave me a caution. But I don't know if they are actually violated copyright. Please discuss about them. --汲平 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont't think these maps violate any copyright. They are quite simple maps showing mostly several specifically shaped grey or red areas separated by white lines (= borders of municipalities), some blue streams now and then. The borders and stream courses themselves are not copyrighted, and the map design is not complicated enought to violate any copyright. So I think we should Symbol keep vote.svg Keep them. --Rosenzweig δ 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CrasnodarTram.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Crasnodar_Troll.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherepovetsBus82.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherepovetsBus.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete no proof to be own work of uploader --Justass (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed there are a lot of maps on the subject, but all of them looks like based on same source, which is unclear. Now Torwald64 states that all maps are entirely own work, drawn from the scratch without any references. COM:SB directly points that in map cases always has to be free source on which map is based, not a re-draw or trace of copyrighted material. Sadly but in this map user fails to provide it --Justass (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherepovetsBus91.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherepovetsBus2000.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherepovetsTroll.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1956.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1958.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1979.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1982Project.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1984.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1986.gif

Delete: the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTram1992.gif

image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CherTramNow.gif

Delete the image shows a copyright notice, so unless uploader can provide evidence of permission it should be deleted Ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:JDBottle.jpg

Listed as public domain, but is a derivative work. Hekerui (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Atomium_panorama.jpg

Likely does not meet Commons:De minimis. This building is copyrighted artwork. Nobody is allowed to distribute their own photos of the Atomium without the consent of the copyright holders. See also Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium. If this is considered to be de minimis then please clariify the Commons policy page. 84user (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


The non-profit organization Atomium has to supervise the reproduction of the image of the Atomium which has a significant symbolic value. It is not allowed to reproduce the image in a wrong or inappropriate way (racist messages,…). The protection of this architectural work was requested by André Waterkeyn, the engineer who designed it to represent Belgium at the Universal Exhibition in 1958 in Brussels. The copyrights are being managed by the SABAM (Publishing rights society) and the non-profit organization Atomium, both assigned by Mr André Waterkeyn during his life and at this moment by his heirs. The image of the Atomium cannot be reproduced or broadcasted without the authorization of the asbl Atomium. The rates are different depending on the nature of the use, whether it is for cultural, educative or commercial purpose.

The use of the image of the Atomium is in some cases free of rights. For example pictures taken by visitors and placed on their private websites without any commercial perspective on a condition that it is a picture of low resolution (maximum 600 pixels and a resolution of 72 dpi). This to avoid downloads and misuse of it. It is imperative to add the mention: "© www.atomium.be - SABAM 2009” followed by the name of the photographer. In accordance with the legislation, the copyright of the Atomium will automatically expire on October 4, 2075, 70 years after the death of André Waterkeyn.

For more information: julie.almau@atomium.be and julie.sevrin@sabam.be

[edit] File:David_Bisbal2.jpg

Doubtful photo from 20minutos,es with Foto:Archivo, according to http://www.20minutos.es/galeria/1578/0/6/david-bisbal-8/ they forgot to indicate, that this image is from Korpa Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) delete --Motopark (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bandwidthfirstissuecover.jpg

Speedy deletion contested by uploader. It seems either that it needs a permission or it is out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Forwarded from my talk page: Good day, I see that my image has been deleted and the reason being of copyright infringement. How is that possible when I am the one who created the image by myself. File referring to was named File:Bandwidthfirstissuecover.jpg Please recover it. Thank you. --Arthur7lee (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to understand this. I created the image from scratch. The images inside it, the artwork layout, everything. Am I missing something here? Do I need to do something in order for my image be put up on wikipedia? Please enlighten me. Thank you.--Arthur7lee (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep User's page has been tagged for multiple copyvios, which all seem to be this one image: a nasty shock for a new user. The picture is the front page of a new magazine they're creating: I don't know if it'll be allowed on the Wikipedia in the context intended but it's a useful enough image and I can't see any reason to doubt its origin. --Simonxag (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Unless permission is given. Wknight94 talk 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/21

[edit] June 22

[edit] File:Cabanatuan_City_Seal.PNG

works of Philippines government requires permission for commercial use. see also en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ph_seal_bulacan_malolos.png

works of Philippines government requires permission for commercial use. see also en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any way to save this photo?

If so, there are no other free alternatives of this image, even if I create one. What shall we do to this photo? I mean, we can't just remove the photo because it is not allowed for commercial purposes since Wikipedia is not a commercial project.

What about the Republic Act 8293 Chapter 4, Sec. 176.1? Doesn't it apply to this logo? This logo can be found in many places in the city and also to the public documents issued by the city including demolition permits, sanitary permits and building permits which are issued and displayed to the public? Barrera marquez (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll discuss this point by point.
(a) Under the project scope of Wikimedia Commons, only free images are allowed. The image license must allow commercial use since content re-users might distribute content commercially. If commercial use is not allowed, the image will be deleted.
(b) Wikimedia is a non-profit organization but the content of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can be distributed commercially by re-users.
(c) Republic Act 8293 Chapter 4, Sec. 176.1 says Philippine government work is public domain but the conflict there is that it does not allow commercial use unless permission is sought from the government. Because of this Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons consider their works non-free.
(d) The use of the logo throughout the city is in a way have an implicit permission because they are actually works of the government.
(e) The English (and Tagalog) Wikipedia can accept non-free works provided that they are tagged correctly ({{non-free seal}} with {{non-free Philippines government}}) and follow the non-free criteria. You can upload these images there.
Hope that helps. --Bluemask (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Ok, I'll re-upload it there... thanks. Please delete the file so that I can re-upload the file in the same name in Wikipedia. Barrera marquez (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stadion_Hajduka_1.JPG & File:Stadion Hajduka 2.JPG

w:sr:Википедија:Дозволе за објављивање/ФКХК seems to be a "Wikipedia only" permission. Permission must be given to everyone to use the image for every purpose, permission only for Wikipedia is not enough. Martin H. (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll request permission for everyone. --BokicaK (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent new request. --BokicaK (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I need more time. I got the answer, but it won't satisfy you :) --BokicaK (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The webmaster hasn't sent me any answer since then. --BokicaK (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 23

[edit] File:Oota1.JPG

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Shiraiw1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Takashima castle8.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Takayaj1.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. And the author of this map of the guidance have finished a term of copyright.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Miyanoura port03s3200.jpg etc.

Copyright violation of art. No freedom of panorama in Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist:Yayoi Kusama(ja:草間彌生,1929-).
Place:Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--KENPEI (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cannot this be considered a building, and be kept according to COM:FOP#Japan? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment　I think　these are arts and buildings. I think these should be removed,because we should not take legal risks(Sorry,my English is very poor).--KENPEI (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, as art work. –blurpeace (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Naoshima01.jpg

Copyright violation of art.No freedom of panorama in Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist:Yayoi Kusama(ja:草間彌生,1929-).
Place:Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--KENPEI (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Naoshima02.jpg

Copyright violation of art. No freedom of panorama in Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist:Yayoi Kusama(ja:草間彌生,1929-).
Place:Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--KENPEI (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Naoshima08.jpg

Copyright violation of art. No freedom of panorama in Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist:Yayoi Kusama(ja:草間彌生,1929-).
Place:Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--KENPEI (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Piratenpartei - Denk Selbst.png

Out of project scope. Simple advertisment for a political party with no possible enyclopedian use. -blunt. (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploader was User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), so I didn't notify him.--blunt. (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Alles oder nichts. Im Zweifelsfall behalten und um die anderen Wahlplakate ergänzen. Bei Artikeln wie de:Landtagswahl in Hessen 2009 ist das eine schöne Momentaufnahme; wenn die Plakate nicht relevant sein sollten, so ist es der Artikel auch nicht. Außerhalb des ANR und jenen Artikeln hat das aber natürlich nichts zu suchen. Außerhalb des Projekt-Scopes ist das Bild jedenfalls nicht. Gruß, --Revolus (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Wer Langeweile hat, darf das gern übersetzen …
Gerne doch ;) :
Translation of Revolus´ post:
All or nothing. In doubt keep and add the other election posters. In articles just like de:Landtagswahl in Hessen 2009 this is a nice snapshot; if the posters souldn´t be relevant then the article isn´t, too. But certainly out of the main namespace and those articles this has no place. Anyway the image isn´t out of project scope. Gruß, --Revolus (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Chaddy (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Such posters are not out of project scope becaue they illustrate the election tactics of the different parties which is important to understand those parties and their manifesto. Chaddy (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tehran_protests_(18).jpg

The picture depicted is a main part, but most likely not under a free licence Florian Adler (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Then it would be necessary to know where is the original of the current image. 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The image also contains EXIF data and Flickr, being the current source of the image, lists the image under a CC license. The image appears to be legit, unless someone places a much different claim upon it. 15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
this is about the picture the man is holding. There is no prove that this picture is CC, too --Florian Adler (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the photographer(Milad Avazbeigi). There is no problem about the license of the photo. I have published all of my photos under cc license in Flicker. If there is any problem, please inform me. Thanks!

I totally believe that your photo is free and could be used here. The problem is that your photo prominently features another photo, which is most likey not free. Some kind of Commons:Derivative work --Florian Adler (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 24

[edit] File:St_François1940.jpg

Postcard from 1930; the author's name is said to be non lisible (unreadable), but it means the publication was not anonymous. So unless the author can be identified and he/she died before 1939, we should delete this image. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Steinigke Showtechnik images

File:Messestand Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Trussing Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Solaranlage Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Halle4 Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Hochregallager Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Unternehmenssitz.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo Europalms.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo PSSO.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del) (PD-text?)
File:Logo Omnitronic.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo Futurelight.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo Dimavery.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo Alutruss.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Logo Steinigke.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:SteinigkeLogo.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Steinigke Logo.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Steinigke logo.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)

All sourced from Steinigke Showtechnik (steinigke.de), all missing permission. Some of the logos might be ineligible, but I'm unsure about that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Nagasaki Peace Park C1868.jpg etc.

Copyright violations of arts. Not free enough for Commons.

Artist:ja:北村西望(Kitamura Seibō ,1884-1987)
Place:Nagasaki,Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)--KENPEI (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of Infobgv

I believe that all images of User:Infobgv and User:İnfobgv are copyvios, because the website (vacacionesbulgaria.com) he states as source does say "copyright" and then he claimes the images as gfdl-self. Either they need to send permission to OTRS or the images should be deleted. The user spammed the website on many wikis now under the usernames sulutil:İnfobgv and sulutil:Infobgv and maybe others. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems as the original images are free - when I've clicked the 'copyright' button (before or after setting the language to English), I've received A page with the logos of GNU and Wikipedia, With Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Spain. As for the user himself and his uploads, that's another story. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept - licensing seems legit.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Разрешения за ползване на материали от Vacaciones Bulgaria

www.vacacionesbulgaria.com Снимки, видео и текстови материали от България на испански език.

  • Автор: Детелина Иванова Русева
  • Фотограф: Мариана Иванова Русева
  • Видео и web обработка: Николай Йорданов Хаджииванов

Носител на авторските права над изображенията е www.vacacionesbulgaria.com и foto.vacacionesbulgaria.com. Тe са публикувани при условията на Лиценза за свободна документация на ГНУ. Посетете галериите със снимки на сайта. Само материалите, включени в Уикипедия са с лиценз GFDL, останалите не - ако трябва да ги ползвате за други цели, моля поискайте разрешение от автора или приложете препратка към оригиналния им източник.

06.2009, VACACIONES BULGARIA

[edit] Autorización para reproducir imágenes de Vacaciones Bulgaria

www.vacacionesbulgaria.com Fotos, video y texto de los materiales procedentes de Bulgaria en español.

  • Autor: Detelina Ivanova Ruseva
  • Fotos: Mariana Ivanova Ruseva
  • Vídeo y del tratamiento: Nikolay Yordanov Hadzhiivanov

Autorización para reproducir en la enciclopedia Wikipedia las imágenes de Vacaciones Bulgaria disponibles en el portal www.vacacionesbulgaria.com y foto.vacacionesbulgaria.com: comunicamos que por parte de Vacaciones Bulgaria no hay inconveniente alguno, siempre y cuando, no se exija una contraprestación económica al interesado y se pueda leer, en la página de descripción de la imagen, la nota explicativa "Imagen reproducida bajo la GFDL con la autorización del Vacaciones Bulgaria.

06.2009, VACACIONES BULGARIA

[edit] Copyright of the picture of Vacaciones Bulgaria

www.vacacionesbulgaria.com Photos, video and text materials from Bulgaria in Spanish.

  • Author: Ruseva Ivanova Detelina
  • Photographer: Mariana Ivanova Ruseva
  • Video processing and web: Nikolay Yordanov Hadzhiivanov

We hereby declare that we are the creators and sole owners of the exclusive copyright of the pictures of VACACIONES BULGARIA www.vacacionesbulgaria.com and foto.vacacionesbulgaria.com. We give our consent these pictures to be published under the free license GFDL. We confirm that we grant anyone the right to use the pictures for any purposes, including commercial ones and to modify them according to their needs, but on condition that they comply with the terms of the mentioned license and/or any other applicable laws. We are aware that we will always keep the copyright of our pictures, and we reserve the right to be attributed in accordance with the chosen license. We realize that we cannot withdraw this agreement and that our pictures may or may not be kept permanently on the Wikimedia projects.

06.2009, VACACIONES BULGARIA

Copyright of the picture of Vacaciones Bulgaria

[edit] File:Su152_2.jpg

No source is stated that can prove that this file is in the public domain. In addition I doubt that en:User:Wesha is the owner of this image. High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BAE_Nimrod.jpg

What about unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification? High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note image used on an offical RAF page [15] with the page marked Crown Copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Me_210_brit1.jpg

No photographer stated, so no evidence given that proves that this photograph was created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957. High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Me_210_brit2.jpg

No photographer stated, so no evidence given that proves that this photograph was created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957. High Contrast (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI think it is very unlikely that the RAF continued to use a captured German aircraft for 12 years, but that is of course only speculation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ChicagoThomasPainewikiMontage.jpg

Invalid derivative collage licensing, cannot be GFDL. Also one image is non-free ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Such a simple collage could probably be considered an "aggregate of independent works" (GFDL 1.3, § 7) or "collection" (CC-BY-SA 3.0, § 1(b)) such that the "share-alike" clauses of the respective licenses will not kick in. (Of course, the license status of the component works would have to be correctly noted in the description.) However, the non-freeness of one of the images (per COM:FOP#United States) is still a problem. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coso_artifact.jpg

The object depicted was discovered in 1961, so the license given is clearly invalid. No source/date/author given. Could possibly be changed into a fair-use image (not on Commons, though). Quibik (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the most likely license would be PD-US-not renewed (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed) but youd have to find out if the copyright was renewed (would have been in 1989) Defaultdotxbe (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Calendar with NSDAP personalities uploaded by Березенкин О.Ю.

Copyright depends on the authors (photographers) lifetime, a photographer is indicated on 6 of 7 images I think it reads something like Photo or Foto as an image caption, but its too small to read. but not mentioned with the upload. Also a date is not correctly given, the last file gives a date that is impossible public domain. Copyright lasts 70 years after the creators death, essential source information, photographer and date is missing. Maybe someone can read this small text or know this images?

  1. File:Reichsleiter Max Amann.jpg
  2. File:Reichsleiter Karl Fiehler.jpg
  3. File:Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler.jpg
  4. File:Reichsleiter Walter Buch.jpg
  5. File:Reichsleiter Wilhelm Grimm.jpg
  6. File:SS-Gruppenführer Richard Glücks.jpg

--Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 25

[edit] File:Vutrongphung.jpg

Not PD-Vietnam, see http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn_T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:Vutrongphung.jpg 123.19.34.112 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It is a photo sticked in one of Vu Trong Phung's journalist card in 1937, added proof information in image description. PD-Vietnam because it was published more than 50 years ago in Vietnam. Vinhtantran (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that having a picture in one's journalist card means the picture has been published (it was not publicly available). –Tryphon☂ 09:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arizona_southeastern_rail_map.jpg

This is claimed to be a map of the Arizona and South Eastern Railroad, but there's no railroad on the map, only roads. NE2 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Takayaj11.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. This map is a simple task . So it's not seems to be copyrighted. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozenjit1.jpg a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yodo2.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持I cannot make out a letter. Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yodoj3.jpg

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:滝山城3.jpg

Copyright violation of writing,and ｃopyright violation of art(map).

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持Regarding to the sentence of this plaque,it isn't perform creatively on ideas or emotion. So I can't be said to infringe a copyright. This map is a simple task . So it's not seems to be copyrighted. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozenjit1.jpg a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Takayaj11.jpg

ｃopyright violations of arts(map,illustration).

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg 維持This map is a simple task. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozenjit1.jpg a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 26

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

[edit] Files by User:Merlin-Verlag

Merlin-Verlag (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)

I dont believe that a publishing house provide images of authors, books and logos on commons without limitation of use.GeorgHH 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ich antworte mal auf deutsch...Ich habe dann wohl beim upload die falsche Kathegorie gewählt. Kannst du mir vielleicht schreiben, was ich angeben muss, um eine Nutzung nur mit Bewilligung des Verlags auszuwählen? Danke.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Merlin-Verlag (talk • contribs)

Closed, kept. After reading User talk:Merlin-Verlag it appears that the Merlin-Verlag owns the copyright of their images and are entitled to upload them. I don't know if OTRS permission has been sent by Merlin-Verlag but they claim they would do so. If something is wrong with the permission then the images should of course be deleted, either speedy deleted or through a new deletion request. / Fred Chess 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Files by User:Merlin-Verlag

Previous closure has been more than 2 years ago, so far no OTRS permission has been received on any of the images. The copyright on these images is obviously owned by Merlin Verlag, a German publishing house. We need OTRS permission to verify that these are really available under a free license. See also above comment by Merlin-Verlag, asking how they can mark images so you need to ask for their permission before using them. I doubt that they ever really consciously handed out a free license. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tribute_to_WW_II_veterans_Netherlands.jpg

I don't believe you just can scan a letter and give it free.... Huib talk 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep with {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The further communication to the public or reproduction of a literary, scientific or artistic work communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities shall not be deemed an infringement of the copyright in such a work, unless the copyright has been explicitly reserved, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. Even if no such reservation has been made, the author shall retain the exclusive right to have appear in the form of a collection his works which have been communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities.

The Dutch law says its copyrighted so that license doesn't count. Huib talk 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
?? I know you can read Dutch too. This is a communication by an official entity (with the Mayor of Amsterdam as its chairman and the Queen as its guardian), and copyright is not explicitly reserved -> PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The copyright is explicitly reserved by Dutch law. Huib talk 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Where? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 27

[edit] Template:Attribution-PresidentofIndonesia

The linked "terms and conditions" page (Google translation) says nothing about copyright; the page footer has a clear "all rights reserved" copyright statement. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:SBYApr2909.jpg which uses the same text - it is allowed to quote the page entirely or in parts. Thats says nothing about commercial reuse, in extreme redistribution, or the creation of derivative works. Thats not a sufficient permission for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why this does not fall under the purview of {{Attribution}} while {{Attribution-NavyofBrazil}} does. The website of the latter also does not mention commercial use or derivative works. The permission for the former is in the statement itself, that given full attribution of the source, "pengutipan" (whose meaning is more than just a quotation of pure text) is permitted. Arsonal (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Cant someone simply ask the office if their photos fulfill the Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms? At the moment we have a decided deletion request and quite obviously a press license or something like that which is not free enough. Everything else like comparing the license tag to other license tags is not helpfull.Freedom can only be given by the copyright holder and is not a question of interpretation, if they grant freedom it would be no problem for them to confirm this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. It's a bit difficult as I'm not personally in Indonesia at the moment. Give me a some time. Arsonal (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:PP000Martineaubry.jpg and File:Giscard (02).jpg

User has a long history of uploading pictures of French politicians or celebrities (en:Dominique de Villepin, en:Xavier Bertrand, en:Carla Bruni, etc. and even the official portraits of former President Jacques Chirac and current President Nicolas Sarkozy) lifted from the Web and claiming own work. Each time pictures look like pro work, have no EXIF data (with the exception of File:Giscard (02).jpg) and are uploaded in Web resolution.

I could not trace the source of the two pictures discussed here, but I see no reason why they should not be copyvios as well. File:Giscard (02).jpg has EXIF data and the user could very well own a Nikon D200, a semi-pro DSLR, but he claims 2006 as the date of the picture, whereas the EXIF data mentions September 3, 2007. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Completing a DR I had forgotten to link to COM:DEL's.

Update: I asked the uploader on his talk page (on his mother WP, fr:) to confirm whether he was he was the photographer or not. He ignored the question and blanked it, as well as a question asked by another Wikipedian regarding File:Evajoly01.jpg, a proven copyvio (http://img.ozap.com/02018424-photo-eva-joly.jpg). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 
Regarding the Giscard image: The EXIF gives more info then shown: "Empreintes - Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, la France au fond des yeux". Giving this to google leads to http://www.france5.fr/empreintes/index-fr.php?page=recherche&recherche=estaing. Same day, same situation, same agency? --Martin H. (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 28

[edit] File:Lazhar_Chraïti_-_Avis_de_recherche_-_Le_Monde_1954.jpg

Le Monde is published in France, so French copyright should apply too. Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Country of origin is Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I limited the file to the photo of Lazhar Chraïti, which was taken in Tunisia, so the Tunisian Law must be applied to it. Thank you. --DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The place of publication is important, the place where something was created is not so important. Is it the well known Le Monde? So it is quite obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course a search warrant for this person was first published in Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, more clear: Can you prove this claim and give it a source? The burden of proof is with the uploader. At the moment the image is sourced to Le Monde -> unfree because of French copyright. In 1954 there was no Tunesia, it was French -> maybe unfree as long as no reason is given why french copyright should not apply.
So what is needed: A source that proofs that the image was first published in Tunesia and a proof that it is not under french copyright because of 1) teritorial belonging and/or 2) possible simultaneous publication in France. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that Le Monde has the copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Le Monde is the (given) source. The copyright is with someone unknown - person or institution, a better source is not given. Back to the request: The image is published in France, the source Le Monde proves this, so French copyright should apply. The country of origin is France. So why should French copyright not apply? Some law, a bilateral agreement or a unilateral law declaring post-independet works under tunisian law? That needs clearification. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Mr Martin H., there was Tunisia at that time. And the occupation of Tunisia by France was only a protectorate on legal papers, so legally it was not belonging to France. For that reason, the photo was shot in Tunisia, not on a French soil. So, the copyright should be TUNISIAN. Thank you.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Only if the author is of Tunisian nationality or has permanent residence in Tunisia. Otherwise, the applicable copyright law is determined by the country of first publication. It does not matter (in the standard case) where a work was created. --Latebird (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Titanic_southhampton.jpg

No first-party sourcing to verify licensing, image was since deleted from the English Wikipedia for the same lack of sourcing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom, also absurd and insulting misinformation in date, author, and source fields. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Pre-WWI photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • But apparently a UK photo, so that age does not assure PD status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • But this image of the Titanic dressed is well known. It is used on book covers. Yet the only attribution that I can find is to a Michael Pocock (source), who is certain not the photographer and unlikely to be the copyright holder; {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepThis photo is one of historical significance and cannot be replaced because the ship is no longer viewable in such condition. To show a photo of the wreck would not convey the same message that this photo does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevermark92 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is completely irrelevent to Wikimedia Commons. While English Wikipedia allows limited "fair use" of non-free licensed media, here at Wikimedia Commons only free licensed images are allowed. Additionally, alternative images such as File:RMS Titanic sea trials April 2, 1912.jpg with better source and copyright info are availible. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why the NARA shoebox would be a better source than book covers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Apology for overlooking the "do not delete" instruction in the box. Photographer's name added, taken from here: I thought it was a fix for the "No first-party sourcing to verify licensing" reason for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! However, now the problem is of finding the death year of the photographer H. Symes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Transwiki & related pages

I'm not really sure of the usefulness of this page is. The few Transwiki: pages created because of this system are either deleted or redirected to a real namespace. We should not be using this procedure most of the time (and I don't think anyone does anymore). According to the meta page: If the import feature is enabled between the originating and remote wiki (and you have access to the restricted feature), see Help:Import. Otherwise, use this procedure to transwiki the page. Well, most transwikis come from en.wp and should only be transferred by importing (same with meta and de.wp). And that creates it's own log. Usually all we use that for is templates since the history of a list of images (i.e. galleries) isn't really important nor conveniently imported (because they're normally a small part of a larger article or need most language specific links/text removed). Files have their own system (although I wish more people would import the actual history instead of having a bot reproduce it somewhere and clutter the page). I guess this still could be used for logging transwikis from projects that don't have import set up yet, but why? What's wrong with saying where something came from in the edit summary? Same result. A link to a deleted page that is completely useless to most people. Rocket000 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages noted probably predate the log. That info should be moved to the appropriate talk page. Then we can nuke it.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: Per nom. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/29

[edit] June 30

[edit] File:Przejazd_wojsk_III_Rzeszy_przez_Katowice.jpg

Uploader claims the image is in the public domain because the author has been dead for more than 70 years. However, no author or source information is given and the photo isn't even 70 years old. Thorsten1 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems the photographer is unknown and the photo shall be {{Anonymous-EU}} in six months time. Sv1xv (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"It seems the photographer is unknown" - I tend to disagree. The fact that the uploader hasn't stated the author doesn't mean the author "seems to be unknown". The photo looks like it was scanned from a printed source, so at least the origin of the scan has to be stated. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a photo published in a newspaper or a magazine (magazines were often printed in the same poor quality) of the period (1939). No way to prove or dismiss the anonymity without access to the original. Sv1xv (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. Unless the uploader lets us know, we can't know whether the photo was published in 1939 or later. I would rather assume it's from a later source, but that's just a guess. At any rate, does this mean that if I upload a scan without posting any information about the author or time/place of publication, can it stay? --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Do as you like. I can't fight against deletionists and irresponsible uploaders at the same time. However it would be more constructive if someone could locate a source instead of scoring deletion points. Sv1xv (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything except posting this for discussion. I'm not a deletionist or copyright-paranoid, and not trying to score deletion points - this is the only file I ever nominated for deletion. "it would be more constructive if someone could locate a source". Certainly, but how is someone supposed to do that without so much as the tiniest clue? The only person who can locate the source is the original uploader. Having said all that, the picture is low-quality, not very informative, unsourced, without license information. Last I heard, such things were candidates for speedy-deletion. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep September 1939 photo, just like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 121-0288, Polen, Schutzpolizei Kattowitz.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, as Sv1xv said: source needed, otherwise delete. At the moment the image is without any sourcing. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06"