From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 July 1.1 July 1 1.1.1 File:Khadijaqalanjo.jpg 1.2 July 2 1.2.1 File:Witch's_Rock,_Costa_Rica.jpg 1.2.2 File:FlashForwardtitle.png 1.2.3 File:Personalisation_de_l'habillage_de_Firefox_avec_l'extension_AnyColor_0.2.6_.png 1.2.4 File:Roue_de_Falkirk.jpg 1.2.5 File:Amelia_and_Frank_Hawks.jpg 1.3 July 3 1.3.1 File:Texaco_No.13.jpg 1.3.2 File:Charmed-dia-w.png 1.3.3 File:CD&E_KES.jpg 1.3.4 File:CD&E_Prozess.jpg 1.3.5 File:CD&E_Ver.jpg 1.3.6 File:Scrabble_board_in_play.jpg 1.3.7 File:Stepanov_RPK-74.jpg 1.3.8 File:Evgkite.jpg 1.3.9 File:Ubisoft_logo.png 1.4 July 4 1.4.1 File:Logo uccacom.png 1.4.2 File:Chi-Nu_depot.jpg 1.4.3 File:Chi-Ha_120mm.jpg 1.4.4 File:Bosjaptankbukitimah.jpg 1.4.5 File:Polish_WZT-2.jpg 1.4.6 File:BMP-1KShM.jpg 1.4.7 File:WZT-1.jpg 1.4.8 File:BWP-1_2.jpg 1.4.9 File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg 1.4.10 File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg 1.4.11 File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg 1.4.12 File:HolonEmblem.png 1.4.13 File:ABarrette.jpg 1.4.14 File:Arashi no naka no Boshi-zo.JPG 1.5 July 5 1.5.1 File:Flood_in_Central_Europe_Meteosat_200906221200_met8.jpg 1.5.2 File:Areios_Pagos_courthouse.jpg 1.5.3 File:Lambeti_theater.jpg 1.5.4 File:PEAN_memorial_plaque.jpg 1.5.5 File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas01.JPG 1.5.6 File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas01.JPG 1.5.7 File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG 1.5.8 File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG 1.5.9 File:DamaskinosStatue200509_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg 1.5.10 File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG 1.5.11 File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG 1.5.12 File:Georgios_Theotokis_statue_in_Corfu.JPG 1.5.13 File:PikiWiki_Israel_3577_Ramat-Gan_City.JPG 1.5.14 File:PikiWiki_Israel_3557_Gan-Shmuel_sb14-_1.jpg 1.5.15 File:Braai4Heritage_poster.jpg 1.5.16 File:Tai_Situ_Rinpoche.jpg 1.6 July 6 1.6.1 File:Handbag_4.JPG 1.6.2 File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg 1.6.3 File:HOLange2.jpg 1.6.4 File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg 1.6.5 File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg 1.6.6 File:Karadenizliler_selanik.jpg 1.6.7 File:Cholargus.JPG 1.6.8 File:Konstantinos_I_of_greece_Pedion_Areos_Athens.jpg 1.6.9 Image:FuchsErika.jpg 1.6.10 Image:Docmorris MeineNeueApotheke.jpg 1.7 July 7 1.7.1 File:Fabian_Ramirez_FARC.png 1.7.2 File:Hauptwerk-schematic.jpg 1.7.3 User:Producer/MyTag 1.8 July 8 1.8.1 Self-created images by Isaberu (talk · contributions) 1.8.2 File:Spud_talking_Fred_through.jpg 1.8.3 File:WhistlingSwanSign.jpg 1.8.4 File:Kresba tužkou The Wraith.jpg 1.8.5 File:Map-of-liguria-map-en-wiki.gif 1.8.6 File:Seychelles.png 1.8.7 File:600px_Giallo_e_Nero_con_pallone_e_stemma_di_Arhem.png 1.8.8 File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg 1.8.9 File:Josef-mengele.jpg 1.9 July 9 1.9.1 File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ladonia.jpg 1.9.2 File:NBDrayton.jpg 1.9.3 File:Pahoehoe lava.jpg 1.9.4 File:Pclinux_3d_cube.jpg 1.9.5 File:Puppy301screenshot.png 1.9.6 File:Blue_&_green_of_Taiwan.png 1.9.7 File:Przyklad.jpg 1.9.8 File:Magnetyczny.jpg 1.9.9 Image:Greenland coat of arms.svg 1.9.9.1 Info about the picture 1.9.9.2 Danish version: 1.9.10 Image:Greenland_coat_of_arms.png 1.10 July 10 1.10.1 Images of Marine12 1.10.2 File:Mens_IPL4.jpg 1.10.3 File:Scalplock_Mountain_Fire_Lookout.jpg 1.10.4 File:Kofferset_A_MK_III_(Marconi).jpg 1.11 July 11 1.11.1 File:Mapa_das_Linhas_Supervia.jpg 1.11.2 Images of Frenchfashion 1.11.3 File:Alania 10 12.png 1.11.3.1 Proposition 1.11.4 File:Pont_Charles-de-Gaulle.jpg 1.11.5 File:Pont_Charles-de-Gaulle.jpg 1.12 July 12 1.12.1 Images by Basitraja 1.12.2 File:LEGO_Transporter.JPG 1.12.3 File:LEGO_Transporter.JPG 1.12.4 File:Sin_título-1.jpg 1.12.5 File:Sin_título-1.jpg 1.12.6 File:Sin_título-1.jpg 1.12.7 NPG images protected by the URAA 1.12.8 File:Eddie_South.jpg 1.12.9 File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG 1.12.10 File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG 1.12.11 File:Old_Bicycle_Path_Railroad_Crossing_in_Medford_New_York.jpg 1.12.12 File:AP Cygne.jpg 1.13 July 13 1.13.1 File:Artwork_by_El_Lissitzky_1919.jpg 1.13.2 File:Alva Blanchard Adams.jpg 1.13.3 File:Lima_cathedral.jpg 1.13.4 File:Памятник_ВОВ.jpg 1.13.5 User talk:Newportm/Archive index 1.14 July 14 1.14.1 File:BY_Vitebsk_square_of_eternal_flare.jpg 1.14.2 File:Aquamacs_screenshot.png 1.14.3 File:Shishkov_-_Novodevichiy.jpg 1.14.4 File:Bubba_Gump.JPG 1.14.5 File:Hauptwerk_Virtual_Organ_(schematic).jpg 1.14.6 File:Ubuntudust.jpg 1.14.7 File:Warsaw_Symphony_Orchestra.jpg 1.14.8 File:Old_greek_biometric_passport.jpg 1.15 July 15 1.15.1 File:Number_13.jpg 1.15.2 Images by 64andy 1.15.3 File:Weezergreen.jpg & File:Mikeywelsh.jpg 1.15.4 File:Company_of_the_Wolf_banner.JPG 1.15.4.1 Do NOT delete this image! 1.15.5 File:Light_bottle.jpg 1.15.6 File:Casta2.jpg 1.15.7 Images of Nikita-lug 1.15.8 File:Dep2.JPG 1.15.9 File:DisneylandMar6_051.jpg 1.15.10 File:Hillburn-dreamer-1955.ogg 1.15.11 File:Barbie_warhol_popart.jpg 1.15.12 File:Ian cox photoshoot.jpg 1.15.13 File:Fulla_in_box.jpg 1.15.14 Images of Ahjwiki 1.15.15 File:MapaSBASE.JPG 1.15.16 File:RussianKeyboardSetup.PNG 1.15.17 File:Capture-2.png 1.15.18 File:Bzip2-logo.png 1.15.19 File:Clarion1.JPG 1.15.20 File:Clarion2.JPG 1.15.21 File:University_of_Glasgow.jpg 1.15.22 File:WillisWard.JPG 1.16 July 16 1.16.1 Maps by 52 Pickup 1.16.2 File:Austin_Kimberley.jpg 1.16.3 File:Niuafoʻou.jpg (old) or File:Niuafoou.jpg (new) 1.16.4 File:Mbr-wappen.jpg 1.16.5 File:Bio_agencies.jpg 1.16.6 File:Fem_biljoner_Mark.jpg 1.16.7 File:Nokia_Nst-4_with_skype.jpg 1.17 July 17 1.17.1 Commons:Deletion_requests/duplicates_renamed 1.17.2 File:Ojo.jpg 1.17.3 File:Puzz3dny.JPG 1.17.4 File:CPM_Image.gif 1.17.5 File:CPM_PLM.gif 1.17.6 File:Nintendo_Gamecube_logo_2.png 1.17.7 File:Guitar_hero_logo.png 1.17.8 File:Sony_Computer_Entertainment_logo.png 1.17.9 File:SNK_NeoGeo_Pocket_logo.png 1.17.10 File:Koei_logo.png 1.17.11 File:GD-ROM_logo.png 1.17.12 File:Resident_evil_series_logo.png, File:Biohazard logo.png 1.17.13 File:Resident_Evil_Code_Veronica_X_logo.png 1.17.14 File:SNK_early_logo.png 1.17.15 File:FSM.png 1.17.16 File:PiratesVsTemp.svg 1.18 July 18 1.18.1 Image:Pflanze Liuthalas 020709.JPG 1.18.2 Image:Wachtelweizen Liuthalas 020709.JPG 1.18.3 File:Каракалла.jpg 1.18.4 File:Юлия_Домна.jpg 1.18.4.1 Some more from same book 1.18.5 File:Imam_Hossein_University_Site.jpg 1.18.6 File:Linenzugbeeinflussung_old_display.jpg 1.18.7 File:FS_VSB-TUO_znak.jpg 1.18.8 File:Papandreou_grave.jpg 1.19 July 19 1.19.1 File:Myron Cope WTAE.jpg 1.19.2 Files in Category:Maurizio Sacripanti 1.19.3 File:Campulungtower.JPG 1.19.4 File:Obregon_as_President_01.jpg 1.19.5 Juulchin and Category:Juulchin 1.19.6 File:M48_attack.PNG 1.19.7 File:Fadu_Day.jpg 1.19.8 File:Bob_Parsons.jpg 1.19.9 File:Borgslaegtens_historie_stor.jpg 1.19.10 File:Yizi.gif 1.19.11 File:Anchors_Aweigh.ogg 1.19.12 File:Imac17pouces.png 1.19.13 File:Phillipe-starck-001.jpg 1.19.14 File:Starck_Tango.jpg 1.19.15 File:IMG_1132crop.JPG 1.19.16 Images by User:Mac9 failed Flickreview 1.20 Update 1.20.1 File:JL-1_launch_test_(1986).JPG 1.20.2 File:Detachment 88 unit.jpg 1.20.3 File:Denjaka soilder.jpg 1.20.4 File:Detasemen Bravo operators.jpg 1.20.5 File:Paspamper training VIP.jpg 1.20.6 File:Paspampers securing building.jpg

[edit] July

[edit] July 1

[edit] File:Khadijaqalanjo.jpg

At the 1970/1980s, according to COM:L#Somalia the copyright office was recording, so this image was in copyright once and is not covered by the selected license Template:PD-Somalia. Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the image was once in copyright, just like many images prior to the 1920s were as well once copyright-protected in the United States, for example, before falling into the public domain. The image, however, is no longer in copyright because there is no longer any copyright protection following the outbreak of the Somali civil war in 1991 & the destruction of the copyright office (similar to the copyright situation in Afghanistan, another war-torn country). The COM:L#Somalia you cite also makes this clear. Middayexpress (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the whole thing is missleading. The linked "Copyright office" http://www.wipo.int/members/en/contact.jsp?country_id=160 is for patents and trademarks, other intelectual property rights, creative works, are not mentioned. Any other copyright law pre 1990 is not mentioned, the authors copyright is not null and void or affected by the war in any way if their is no obligation to register and renew copyright. The difference to Afghanistan is, that they never had a copyright law - thats not profen for Somalia. --Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the patents and trademarks section you mention on the World Intellectual Property Organization website is only cited in the bottom half of the country's profile page. The top half clearly cites the "Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, Copyright Office"; in other words, the national copyright office. WIPO states it no uncertain terms that the "last information communicated" was in November 1986 i.e. that was when the copyright office was still extant. Somalia has had no copyright relations with other countries since then, the United States included. If you prefer, here, in addition to one link in English, are two other links in two other languages from the same organization that explain the copyright situation in Somalia, and all of these links strictly deal with the copyright office (1, 2, 3). Finally, contrary to what you claim, war-torn Afghanistan just like war-torn Somalia once did indeed also used to have copyright law. But that too has fallen by the wayside in the wake of the conflicts there. Middayexpress (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The former Copyright Office of Somalia did cover creative works, the most famous example being the Somali government's refusal to allow the publishing of R.C Abraham's Somali-English dictionary in the 60s.[1]. Somalia is neither a member of TRIP or the Berne Convention and the Office of Copyright is defunct and it's laws no longer cover Somali intellectual property originating in Somalia. A good example would be the old government text books digitized by Indiana University long after the collapse of the central government[2] --Scoobycentric (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 2

[edit] File:Witch's_Rock,_Costa_Rica.jpg

It was uploaded by my assistant and it is NOT public domain. Sean davis (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC) error in uploading by assistant, not for free use, please delete asap.

This was uploaded by my assistant and was NEVER meant to be public domain. Sean davis (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, or devalue wikimedia in any way. I had an assistant that I instructed to help me with some website SEO and the tedius task of backlinking and he posted some photos to wikimedia in hopes that it would help the rating. Well, it wasn't the only idiotic thing that he did, so I let him go a while ago. Recently, I saw a poster of this image, and I found the creator and asked how he obtained the file. He led me to wikipedia. I am not suing anyone, and have no interest in litigation. I just want it removed if possible, and I believe that it would be the ethical thing to remove it. It was a mistake, by a kid of 22 that I hired and I need to deal with. I barely know how to work wikimedia (obviously).Thanks for your consideration. -Sean Davis

{{copyvio|delete at once}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.162.183 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1. Jul. 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Copyvio, not in use, copyright holder requested deletion. Hekerui (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Uploaded in November 2006 - too long ago to start having regrets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Does not matter whether it is "too long ago to start having regrets" for the case that the assistant never had the rights to publish the image under a free license. In this case, the image has actually NEVER BEEN in the public domain or anything similar. Therefore there is no other way than deleting. Yellowcard (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  The image was uploaded by User:Sean davis with a {{PD-self}} license, and one should be able to rely on that. Otherwise I suggest closing the account and nuking all the uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  While I also tend to deletion, I think Pieter is right in that we should request OTRS confirmation for all (few) other uploads of User:Sean davis. This would be File:Barbershop, Bocas Del Toro Panama.JPG, File:ArenaL volcano.jpg and File:Beach and coconut Bocas Del Toro Panama.JPG.

  And there comes another problem to my mind. If in the past two years, when this image appeared to be legitimately licensed as PD, somebody re-used the image outside of Wikimedia and is still using it, he might become at risk to be sued for copyright-infringement by the real-world Sean Davis. Could we keep a record of the complete history of that image on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Why would we keep the history of this file? It doesn't matter whether we hosted it and claimed it was PD, the re-users can be sued anyway. If we keep the history, we only risk lawsuits for ourselves. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm, writing a line about "being a commercial photographer" on your userpage doesn't make you/me an artist, and it weren't "we" who claimed it to be PD, it was the uploader himself, who as of yet doesn't deny he uploaded his images himself, except the one that he wants to have deleted now. --Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Story about the assistant is dodgy considering that the four pictures were uploaded within minutes of each other. Lycaon (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete This is exactly the reason why we require OTRS permission for work by known artists. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  I do not see what difference OTRS would have made. The photographer's commercial assistant would have answered that this was PD. We should treat this in the same way as if one had negotiated a commercial license with the assistant. One would not shred the travel brochures or pay extra just because the photographer came back and regretted the deal the assistant had made. (This image is now on http://www.seandavisphotographic.com/ under "travel".) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case, when this is somehow kept someone can request OTRS from the official website (because even now, how do we know it's really the photographer OR the assistant?) - none will come, this will be deleted in a week. Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  With exception of the b/w image, the two other images by this uploader are also found on the website (travel) mentioned by Pieter. As a result of this request I've tagged all three other images by this uploader with the permission-missing-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Whatever the outcome of this DR, the story about the assistant etc is fishy. It looks to me like a license revocation. Sv1xv (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - The author would have had to commit several grave errors of judgment for his explanation to make any sense. The most obvious ones would be to give his assistant access to his personal account on Commons, and not to check the uploads done in his name for several years. In practise this would mean that he tacitly made the decicions of his assistant his own, and thus now has to live with the result. But then, it seems more likely that this is just a clumsy attempt at license revocation, and there may well be no assistant involved at all. --Latebird (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I'm kinda offended the he thinks we would dumb enough to believe that. Regardless of the assistant (yeah right), it's been here way too long for anyone to believe it was a mistake. Guys, this is going to happen a lot. Once images here find their way into commercial publications, the authors are going to try to act like it was a mistake or something. Deleting these for them is completely unfair everyone else. If he was honest with us, I would consider the lack of usage (which I can't even check right now) and the fact he was the author/uploader, but I'm not to inclined to do any favors after hearing an excuse like that. And almost 3 years!? Please. Rocket000 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking vote based on the email I received (the same thing he posted above). I still don't buy it, but regardless it's still an author's request for an unused file. At least I think it's unused; CheckUsage is still down. I would like if he could send OTRS permission for the other ones so this doesn't happen again. Rocket000 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still opposed to deletion. User:Sean davis wants to delete this image because someone started using it. That is not a reason to delete. Complying with his request might cause problems for people that use commons images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also a complication for the author if he is honest. You think he's lying, I'm not sure. Hekerui (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying he is lying. I just would not want to do business with his enterprise. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FlashForwardtitle.png

Probably protected logo, cannot find any permission in the OTRS system, and the licensing will probably not be valid since the uploader is not the copyright owner (otherwise this should be proved via OTRS verification). Yellowcard (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it can be kept when tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}, though. Yellowcard (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Personalisation_de_l'habillage_de_Firefox_avec_l'extension_AnyColor_0.2.6_.png

AVRS (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is the last discussion that led to deletion of the original logo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox-Logo-Orginal.png. I also think that this image is problematic and should be discussed, too: File:Personalisation de l'habillage de Firefox avec l'extension AnyColor .png. BartłomiejB (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one, too: File:Habillage gris par défaut, car pas activé AnyColor.png. This also contains Firefox logo, although it is smaller at least: File:Downloadmanager firefox.PNG BartłomiejB (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please only add closely related images to the deletion request, or it won’t work (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox 1 5 0 3.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Screenshots with non-free logos, User:AVRS/to do). --AVRS (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Roue_de_Falkirk.jpg

AVRS (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC); AVRS (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment License seems similar to the [CC sampling+ license - free, but probably not worthwhile uploading here. I suspect considerable editing would be needed to make this completely free - just cropping or clipping may not be enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amelia_and_Frank_Hawks.jpg

no evidence of copyright nonrenewal Mangostar (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the following message was sent to the Purdue University:

Dear Shauna (borger@purdue.edu)

I would like to use two images found in the Purdue University Libraries e-Archives,: 1. Old ID Number xv.c.25, New ID Number b13f12i10 Title: Amelia Earhart and Frank Hawks and 2. Old ID Number xv.c.7, New ID Number, b13f15i13, Title: Pilot Frank Hawks in flight

to illustrate an article on Wikipedia about Frank Hawks. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Monroe_Hawks>

I am an author and researcher with nine books in publication and 13 films in which I was a technical director or consultant, and intend to use this publicly accessed article as the basis of an a scholarly work in the future, but have had some difficulty in obtaining images for illustration.

Can you release the two aforementioned images through accepting the following: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=673&CISOBOX=1&REC=1] and [3] .

I agree to publish that work under the free license [4] LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses text: CC-BY-SA version 3.0].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk <wzuk1@shaw.ca>

The archivist wrote back on July 6, 2009 to confirm that the Purdue Library holds title to the work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

[edit] July 3

[edit] File:Texaco_No.13.jpg

no evidence of copyright nonrenewal Mangostar (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the following message was sent to the Purdue University:

Dear Shauna (borger@purdue.edu)

I would like to use two images found in the Purdue University Libraries e-Archives,: 1. Old ID Number xv.c.25, New ID Number b13f12i10 Title: Amelia Earhart and Frank Hawks and 2. Old ID Number xv.c.7, New ID Number, b13f15i13, Title: Pilot Frank Hawks in flight

to illustrate an article on Wikipedia about Frank Hawks. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Monroe_Hawks>

I am an author and researcher with nine books in publication and 13 films in which I was a technical director or consultant, and intend to use this publicly accessed article as the basis of an a scholarly work in the future, but have had some difficulty in obtaining images for illustration.

Can you release the two aforementioned images through accepting the following: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=673&CISOBOX=1&REC=1] and [5] .

I agree to publish that work under the free license [6] LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses text: CC-BY-SA version 3.0].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk <wzuk1@shaw.ca>

The archivist wrote back on July 6, 2009 to confirm that the Purdue Library holds title to the work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

[edit] File:Charmed-dia-w.png

First off, User:Aarchiba/Brookhaven permission should be forwarded to OTRS; however, the wording in the letter are ambiguous and not decidedly in public domain's favor. The conditions specified are to comply with http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/images_legal.html (which has not changed — 2004 version). The terms never declare the images to be in the public domain, and seem to be spelling out terms for "fair use" instead. Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples:

• License Granted by BNL: "your reproduction of images is limited to the specific use described in your request to use the image, which together with these terms shall constitute the full license granted."
• No Alterations: "When using such images, you may not make or permit any modifications to or alterations of the images (except for standard color correction or minor cropping for space limitations) or to the caption information unless specifically agreed in writing by BNL."
• Publication Right: "BNL shall exclusively retain all publication rights arising from your use of our images."

The above is just a sprinkling of the restrictions. None stated the images are in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: The email state the file is public domain. The license is for the other images found on the BNL websites.en:User:Headomb

The point is the wording in in the email is ambiguous; the stated license is not for the other images, it applies to the images that were asked for as well: "Below is the information you need to use the photos for your book. ... This permission is applicable only for the single use that you requested. ..." Jappalang (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Approval to http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/images_legal.html means it's not public domain. Hekerui (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This just shows that commons policy is too restrictive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep because it is a work of the United States federal government and thus ineligible for copyright, and in the email the writer states "While they are considered public domain, we need to be sure that the images are not used for proprietary purposes" she is making clear there are restrictions in addition to the copyright like personality rights or claiming a public domain photo is under your copyright Movieevery (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  It is not a work by the federal government. BNL are government contractors, whose works are copyrighted per "Works created under a federal government contract or grant". See also Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, BNL images and conditions are fair use as they are allowed to: "Whenever the contractor asserts claim to copyright in works other than computer software, the Government, and others acting on its behalf, are granted a license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the copyrighted work." The correspondence in the User page shows a mismatch in understanding of the terms employed. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  that's not entirely true, BNL is owned by United States Department of Energy, but the research performed is contracted, I guess we would need to know who the photographer was to determine the copyright of the images, but I note that the email response from BNL did claim 'public domain', although they may not fully understand what public domain means. Movieevery (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Permission tickets are to be unamibiguous in their declaration of licenses and copyrights. If they do not fully understand what public domain is, they cannot release it to that status in good effect. As noted in Commons:OTRS, "forward the e-mail with the author's clear statement of permissions to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org". Also note that "The author must choose one of the licenses permitted at Commons; in particular, restricting use to Wikipedia or Wikimedia projects is not acceptable.", which is what the correspondence with this "Jane Koropsak" has went against. The permission by "Koropsak" is ambiguous and restricted in use. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  The BNL Image Licensing Policy is invalid and unenforceable. Those working at BNL are employees of US DOE, a fact acknowledged by BNL on their Privacy and Security Notice page thus: "There are times when your message is forwarded, as e-mail, to other Department of Energy employees ..." (my emphasis). --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  The DoE manages the website, but as stated the works performed in the BNL can be performed under contract or even under programs.[7][8] Contracted works are copyrighted, but licensed to the government for "free use" as again stated above. Such works are not in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. We have a letter from BNL saying it's public domain, along with the usual gobbledygook trying to impose further restrictions on it, which they can't legally do. There's no evidence to support speculation that the work was performed by a contractor. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Without the email saying the image is in the public domain I would have said no, but the email clearly says the image is in the public domain. The email certainly appears to be official and authentic on its face, and I'm not going to second guess whether or not the BNL person writing the email could have been mistaken about the image being in the public domain. Bluepjs23 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 17 July 2009, I have emailed BNL on the status of the images, and this is the reply from their Senior Patent attorney. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jappalang on Wikimedia,

To clarify, the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charmed-dia-w.png as obtained from the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) website at http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/charmed.asp is available to the public subject to the BNL image policy regarding such things as alteration, unauthorized use, and sensitive subjects. The basis for limitations on use of this image is derived from the fact that BNL is a DOE owned laboratory that is operated by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (BSA), a contractor of the U.S. Government under a prime contract providing BSA certain rights. And accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce this image, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.

Best regards,
Dorene

Dorene M. Price, Esq.
Sr. Patent Attorney
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Building 185
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Phone: 631-344-4153
Fax: 631-344-3729
www.bnl.gov/techxfer

• Delete. BNL is not the US Federal Government and the above email clearly indicates that the image is not PD. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Email plus relevance to the article are enough proof that this image must not be deleted. -- DragonFly31, September 15 2009

Relevance to an article does not change a copyright rationale, and the email is vague at best. Hekerui (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The email is not vague. They clearly state that Wikipedia can use the image. We can debate the PD-aspect, but we should not delete the image. --Thorwald (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Both emails on the subject seem quite clear. The image has been specifically released for use on wikipedia, and thus should not be deleted. In any case, this discussion is so absurd that I'll just reupload it immediately. :P September 15 2009
• Keep' If an image is created under a federal contract then it would still be PD. Just as images/art created by NASA contractors is considered PD. A lab running under contract of the U.S. Government means anything it produces is PD. Or so my understanding of that law is. Raeky (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It is simple, really. Brookhaven National Laboratory is a US government funded institution and, as such, all of its works should be PD. --Thorwald (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Please tell your congressman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  That's relevant if the works are considered "works for hire", with their copyright therefore owned by the Government rather then BNL. I would think that should be true, but I suppose it depends on the nature of their contract. --199.246.40.54 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: as wet as I get for GNU and the public domain, it is absolutely silly to take down such a relevant image. 128.189.130.176

• Comment Speedy keep, according to their lawyer "U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce this image, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes." Thats right there states it's in the public domain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  That is not correct. It just means that the Department of Energy can publish this without asking. But it does not mean that anybody has that right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_KES.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Avron,

da ich dem Zentrum für Transformation der Bundeswehr angehöre und die Bundeswehr eine Einrichtung des Bundes ist, nahm ich an, dass alles was ich einstelle auch unter die GermanGov gehört. Falls dies nicht der Fall sein sollte, bitte ich um Verbesserung, da ich mich nicht so detailliert mit Urheber und anderern Sachen auseinandergesetzt habe. Meine Vorgesetzte Dienststelle hat alle verwendeten Images frei gegeben, so dass sie eigentlich durch jeden zu benutzen sind.

Das kann schon sein, doch unter Paragraph 5 des Urhebergesetzes [9] fallen diese Folien kaum. Wenn du der Autor bist, dann könntest du diese unter GFDL oder CC-Lizenz stellen. Ansonsten bleibt der Weg über Commons:OTRS--Avron (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep PD-self is fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_Prozess.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per author's reply; please make a mass DR for cases like these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_Ver.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per author's reply; please make a mass DR for cases like these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Scrabble_board_in_play.jpg

Derivative work ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/issues.html (especially "Books on Scrabble") - it seems the whole category will have to go if I understand the legal stuff correctly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep No threshold of originality, only text and shapes. But there is one cover in this cat: File:Juniorscrabble Grieks.jpg I wonder who gave the permission ...--Avron (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can't believe.[10] Rocket000 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Evgkite.jpg

The original source w:en:File:Evgkite.jpg (see the upload log from nl.wikipedia) was deleted as replacable fair use. I dont know whether the deletion reason is correct or not. The image is roughly sourced to http://www.sfwmd.gov, but who the creator is or a deeper source is not specified. Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ubisoft_logo.png

This is not a screenshot. I doubt the licence includes the company logo Belgrano (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, in every game (at least the recent ones from the Prince of Persia series) this logo is shown in the very start of it, just as most videogames. This last version isn't a screenshot indeed (the one that was edited with added transparency), but the only difference from this one and a screenshot is the quality. I think that the best solution is to revert to its original version OR replace it with a real screenshot. Sorry for any trouble. Regards, Mr.Yah! ^msg 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep As Ya said, Ubisoft uses their logo on it's games start screen. Would be the same thing if he had taken the screenshot and took it's background off. And the logo is simple enousgh. A circle with gradient color and a simples text. Note: Per the United States Copyright Office: "familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... typeface as typefaced are not subject to copyright. Also see Image_casebook Trademarks. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment First of all, it would be best not mixing licences. Either it falls under the simple logo thing ; or it falls under Ubisoft agreement. On the latter : Ubi agreement may allow screenshots, it does not allow anything. I remember screenshots of Naruto characters taken on Ubi games which were deleted : Ubi had the right to use their design, we to take screenshots of Ubi game, yet we could not have free pictures of those characters, as the copyright was not held by Ubi. So it is not obvious that shooting the logo off the game makes the logo free.

Second, we just can't have stuff like "It would be the same if". Start like this, and we end up like "I did not take this picture, but I could have, so let's upload it". It just doesn't make sense. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ubisoft act as third-party in Naruto's case. Though Ubisoft develops Naruto's games the cipoyright belong primarly to Aniplex. In many cases Ubisoft just publish games like Soulcalibur tha belongs to Namco. In cases like that we must analyze well who are really the copyright owners. Ubisoft allowed screenshots of their games so I can take a screenhsot of a single character in the game and upload here. Ubisoft didn't restricted anything like that, either it said we must use our own screenshots. IF we were aloowed to use only our own screenshots, how could br proved they were taken by ourselves? And the logo is simple so keep it anyway.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I dont think the logo is simple enough to evade copyright Corpx (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Question: when applied to videogames, does the term "screenshot" refer to screenshots taken during gameplay, or to any screenshots taken anytime during the software execution? Usually videogames start with small movies of logos and advertisments, an opening movie for the videogame itself, and then the main interface. Are those logos and advertisments at the begining considered part of the game? I would though that they were not, but I may be mistaken Belgrano (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a question nobody wants to answer, as it might rule out many screenshots : opening movie, title screen, menues, cut-scenes, included making-of... Jean-Fred (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that any kind of screenshot is a fair use thing, and unsuitable for commons. Corpx (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right in most cases, except when the software is delivered under a free licence. Then screenshots are free. The question here is whenever this freedom reachs the logo: in mozilla firefox it does not, and in wikipedia or commons it does not. Belgrano (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright holders (ie editors) have the right to release screenshots under a free licence. In this case, Ubisoft gave us permission (well, kind of) : {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt they want to allow "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use" for their logo. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a logo if anyone can copy and use it Corpx (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing being licensed is the copyright -- trademark rights are still fully retained, which are stronger (and more applicable) for logos anyways. They are meant to be copied and used in appropriate places. If kept, the image should be tagged with {{trademarked}}. That said, using the Ubisoft screenshot license for an image which is *just* the logo feels like it is a bit of a stretch. But, it may still technically apply (and the copyright would be owned by Ubisoft, even if the rest of the game was not, which as mentioned may be an issue with other screenshots). In the U.S., I think this would easily qualify for copyright, so the Ubisoft license is the only way it could be allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 4

[edit] File:Logo uccacom.png

Image is outside of Project scope. Based upon image usage on both Commons and English Wikipedia (posting to article namespace have been deleted), this logo for a computer store located in Indonesia(?) was apparently uploaded for promotional/advertising purposes. --Allen3 (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete User page often deleted on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chi-Nu_depot.jpg

unclear source information and copyright status. Evidence is missing! 132.199.211.5 06:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Sourcing is exemplary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chi-Ha_120mm.jpg

unclear source information and copyright status. Evidence is missing! 132.199.211.5 06:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Nowhere on the website does it credit the picture to US military personnel on duty Corpx (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bosjaptankbukitimah.jpg

unclear source information and copyright status. Evidence is missing! 132.199.211.5 06:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Polish_WZT-2.jpg

unfree source and permission for free use is missing. Evidence is missing that photos from the polish ministery of defence are free to use. 132.199.211.5 07:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's your permission: User:Nemo5576/MON. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BMP-1KShM.jpg

Very doubtful that this image was taken by a US-Army employee. www.inetres.com always falsely published images under PD-US Army 132.199.211.5 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary some of the images described on that website as "U.S. DoD Photo" or similarly are on websites like http://www.defenseimagery.mil.

Example: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60P_01.jpg and http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html;jsessionid=37EBA66A503334DF2995992486236C86#a=search&s=BTr-&chk=6cfe0&n=90&guid=968b3be33f86247f731f82b70af35d8b2f6d25c5.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WZT-1.jpg

unfree source and permission for free use is missing. Evidence is missing that photos from the polish ministery of defence are free to use. 132.199.211.5 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Uploader not notified, permission seems ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BWP-1_2.jpg

unfree source and permission for free use is missing. Evidence is missing that photos from the polish ministery of defence are free to use. 132.199.211.5 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's your permission: User:Nemo5576/MON. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

No reason for deletion, the only work to do might be clarification of licensing. Kept. Julo (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:HolonEmblem.png

Converted from a dupe-speedy by User:Kippi70 for "File:HolonEmblem.svg, not in use" to rfd by me, as files show the same but are not identical --Túrelio (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep We no longer supersede raster files just because a vector version is available. -Nard the Bard 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ABarrette.jpg

Photo from [12], taken 1949 and thus not eligible for {{PD-Canada}}. Lupo 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arashi no naka no Boshi-zo.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Japan.

Artist:Shin Hongo(ja:本郷新,1905 - 1980).

Place:Shiga,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk)

[edit] July 5

[edit] File:Flood_in_Central_Europe_Meteosat_200906221200_met8.jpg

impossible tp publish this image under a public domain licence 132.199.211.3 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i dawdled - i had to look for correct attribution on http://www.eumetsat.int - i found an licence at File:Windstorm 08 jan 2005 1200Z.JPG

in fact, eumetsat says:

Note: All Meteosat images shown on our Web server are subject to EUMETSAT copyright. If you wish to re-use these Meteosat images, EUMETSAT's copyright credit should be shown by displaying the words "copyright {year} EUMETSAT" (where {year} is the current year) on each of the images shown. [13]

full policy is found in EUMETSAT Data Policy (pdf) via http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Basic/Legal_Information/SP_LEGAL_DATA_POLICY, where is stated at 4.

EUMETSAT shall make its Six-hourly Meteosat Data, the Meteosat Derived Products and the data offered through its Meteosat Internet Service available to all users world-wide on a free and unrestricted basis as "Essential" Data and Products in accordance with WMO Resolution 40 (Cg-XII).

as i understood, this image is rated "Essential"

is that acceptable? if we keep it, should i place a correct copyright © 2009 EUMETSAT into the image - maybe also the other file above? --W!B: (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete, eumetsat is no USAgov. 77.49.26.65 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Free annd unrestricted, attribution required, if I understand the terms correctly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I think it's free. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Where is the difference to File:Windstorm 08 jan 2005 1200Z.JPG - if one is free, the other not? --K@rl (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete There you cannot find any information about commercial use or derrivative works. Looks more that the images are copyrighted: All Meteosat images shown on our web server are subject to EUMETSAT copyright. --High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - Of course those images are copyrighted, as are most images on Commons. But they are licensed for free and unrestricted use with attribution. "Unrestricted" excludes restrictions eg. for derivative or commercial use, so that this license is perfectly acceptable for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are these images licensed for free and unrestricted use with attribution? --High Contrast (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They specify such a license in their Data Policy for what they call "essential" material (IV). Images on their web site seem to count as "essential" (2.3). I'n not entirely sure how to read that paragraph, though. We might need to reduce the resolution to 800x800 pixels. --Latebird (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this image is not actually taken from the EUMETSAT website, but from the personal web page of Bernhard Mühr at the University of Karlsruhe ([14]). Thus, I suspect it doesn't actually fall under the scope of the "Meteosat Internet Service" in the first place. Also worth noting, but probably of secondary importance, is that in using the term "free and unrestricted" the EUMETSAT Data Policy references WMO Resolution 40 (Cg-XII), which in a footnote defines that term as meaning "non-discriminatory and without charge" (and refers to another WMO resolution, which I couldn't find on Google). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete The copyright holder didn't state about commercial use and derivative works. So it should be recognised as those rights are reserved by EUMETSAT.--Kwj2772 (msg) 07:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In doubt, why not asking the people who created this image? --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, Ilmari Karonen is right, i misunderstood the source of the image - uni-karlsruhe.de is just the host of the archive, but it wont be for free anyhow without explicite statement - as Túrelio suggested, I'll try to contact one of the metreologigcal agencies associated with EUMETSAT, till then please (as the uploader)  Delete W!B: (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The only copyright requirement is attribution. Of course this allows commercial use, that is what meteorological images are typically used for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Areios_Pagos_courthouse.jpg

No freedom of Panorama i Greece 77.49.26.65 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. That's just a square building! Is he going to request deletion for the supermarket next to my house too?! --The daydreamer (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lambeti_theater.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe should be deleted because of the poster, but the building seems rather common. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PEAN_memorial_plaque.jpg

No freedom of panoArma in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Faltermeier, probably Heinrich, dead 1999, so  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG

No freedom of Panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete I interpret "occasional reproduction" as de minimis only, and unfortunately the restriction to the undefined "mass media" is too much for us,

The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. Dorieo (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this user apparently unwilling to wait for the lawyers to complete their research into the topic, but he is again submitting many images in the same day for speedy deletion, in spite of the fact that he has been asked not to while the Freedom of Panorama issue is being settled. See [15] and User_talk:Iconoclast. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DamaskinosStatue200509_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedestal has a 1949 date, modern sculture,  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know when works of art in Greece become PD? --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Must be the same as the rest of the EU: 70 years after the artist's death. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece. This is a crazy law, but it is the law nonetheless. Sigh. – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Occasional reproduction is very unlikely to include publication as postcards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece. The user who submitted the deletion nomination was asked to wait until folks got some research back from the lawyers, instead of forcing people to reply on 25 separate pages a day. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Georgios_Theotokis_statue_in_Corfu.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of sculptor: Georgios Dimitriades. Article: Art in Corfu until the 40’s.. Quote: "Nevertheless, during the first decades of the 20th century, public sculptures are mounted, mainly honorary busts, in areas of Corfu town. These come directly from Athenian workshops.", "Nevertheless, during the first decades of the 20th century, public sculptures are mounted, mainly honorary busts, in areas of Corfu town. These come directly from Athenian workshops. It is thus noted that commissions are now placed to other centres, capable to serve the needs of the local society, needs no longer covered by the local artists. It is at this precise time that busts of Nikolaos Halikiopoulos-Mantzaros and Petros Vrailas-Armenis by Evanghelos Kallos, the bust of Lorentzos Mavilis by Petros Roubos, the bust of Nicolaos Mantzaros, by Michael Tombros, the statue of Georgios Theotokis by Georgios Dimitriadis and the Memorial of the Fallen by Vasos Falireas, are all mounted in Corfu town." and "In most cases, these works are within the boundaries of the classic style. The statue of Georgios Theotokis, mounted on a pedestal emphasizes its distance from the spectator and attempts an idealistic impression of the person, following faithfully the classic principle."Dr.K. (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Georgios Dimitriades sculptor 1880 – 1941 Dr.K. (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep I am against cancellation. It is almost 70 years, so PD.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons isn't a collection of almost free content. The point is that it has not been 70 years since the author died. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PikiWiki_Israel_3577_Ramat-Gan_City.JPG

COM:DW, FOP does not apply (2D-work, not permanently situated). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not permanently situated? Where do you think they're going to move it when the centenary is over? Surely they'll just throw it away. That makes this its permanent situation. -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Permanently situated has two meanings in this context: (1) fixed in a public place and never moved from there (2) a movable object that has the sole purpose of being displayed in public, an there no intention to collect it for future use. The content of this poster clearly indicates that it has no other purpose but being displayed in this public place (even if it is technically movable). 2D-works are covered under the Israeli copyright law, and I am afraid Pieter Kuiper is not the authority regarding the interpretation of Israeli laws. Drork (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is only one meaning. Your (1) does not exist — there is no such thing as a work that will last forever! Every work that is displayed in public will be removed eventually, whether after one year or a thousand; but it is obvious that this does not make it a temporary situation. As you say, what matters is whether it is intended to be put on private display afterwards, and in this case that is clearly not going to happen. Would Mr Kuiper claim that an ice or butter sculpture is not "permanently situated", merely because it will not be there for very long? -- Zsero (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PikiWiki_Israel_3557_Gan-Shmuel_sb14-_1.jpg

This is a weird collage; not in use; does not seem to be in scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not in scope - historical image of the people of the vilage. Deror avi (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is not in use, I cannot see any educational purpose.  Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not in use now, but it could easily be used in an article about Gan Shmuel. It's a charming photo of village life in the 1950s. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep the image. This project's scope is wide enough. Drork (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Braai4Heritage_poster.jpg

Not own work by uploader. Poster for an event in S. Africa. Sv1xv (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the artwork belongs to and is paid for by the uploader. The uploader is the person responsible for the Braai4Heritage campaign and briefed an ad agency, DraftFCB Cape Town, to develop the work for their 2008 campaign. The uploader therefore owns the right to distribute the visual. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.2.204.214 (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, please contact the OTRS, so that it can be confirmed that you are the copyright hoder and that you really gave the permission to use it here. Because, to be honest, I doubt that. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tai_Situ_Rinpoche.jpg

want to upload better qualitiy Nyinje1 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment You can use the link "Upload a new version of this file" on the image page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment. Something weird is going on here. File:Tai Situ Rinpoche.jpg was uploaded as own work by User:Nyinje1. A downscaled version was uploaded at File:KTSitu Rinpoche.jpg the next day and claimed as own work by User:Sherab1180. The latter should certainly be deleted, but I'm not sure what to do with the former. Pruneau^talk 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 6

[edit] File:Handbag_4.JPG

Used as a selling tool. Calton (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Do we care? The file is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"We"? Perhaps you don't care that Wikimedia Commons is being used to host someone's spam, but you're not royalty, a newspaper editor, or somone with a tapeworm. --Calton (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - personal attacks aren't useful arguments. The only "spam" I can see is in the description, and easily removed. The image itself is just an image of a handbag, suitable for many educational uses. Blurring the logo on the label would eliminate all "commercial contamination", if that really matters that much to you. --Latebird (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg

This seems to be very close to the Yousuf Karsh case. One LAC source claims copyright by Susan King, restrictions of use: nil. The more general overview of Susan King's work asserts copyright on everything. Due to it being made in 1987, I see no reason why this copyright has expired in the US, even if it has in Canada, and we require US copyright laws to be satisfied, not just those of the originating country. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No one asserted that the copyright on this image had expired, so this really isn't comparable to the Karsh situation. As is clear from the image description page, Library and Archives Canada indicated on its website that although copyright was held by King, restrictions on its use were nil -- i.e. it was freely licensed by the copyright holder (which, depending on the scope of the license, would make it acceptable here on the Commons). There used to be hundreds of copyrighted "restriction nil" LAC images on the Commons. However, after a series of emails between LAC and Commons editors, it became evident that the licenses under which these images were used did not allow for derivatives (I can located links to the relevant discussions, if you would like). Given that this restriction did not comply with Commons' licensing requirements, these images were either deleted or were migrated over to Wikipedia to be used under a fair use rationale. This image ought to have been deleted or migrated under the great "LAC purge", but was obviously missed. So, I have no objection to deletion, not on the basis of the copyright rationale put forward in the nomination, but rather that the free license is insufficient. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you are willing could you locate links to the discussion for me, and either put them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The email from LAC is at here. Anything from LAC that is not in the public domain is restricted in terms of derivatives (and re-distribution, apparently, upon re-reading the LAC email). So this image of Gehry is not freely-licensed, at least not in a manner acceptable to the Commons. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this discussion here from about a year ago. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• If evidence can be foudn that our use is allowed, then Keep, otherwise, delete it. 74.76.180.0 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:HOLange2.jpg

PD-Denmark50 is only valid for photographic pictures without artistic merit. This looks like a professional portrait photo with artistic merit. --Nillerdk (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete because photo could have been taken in his last years around 1940-1943 and is thus still protected by copyright (maybe until January 1, 2014) Nillerdk (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-Denmark50}} applies to all normal photography. This is just a portrait, not a work of art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making things too easy now. There is no clearly defined borderline between photographic images and photographic pictures in the relevant Danish law (Lov om Ophavsret - for a English consolidated version, see [16]) and there have been no court decisions regarding this. The best thing we can do, is to compare §1 and §70. If §1 applies, we can't use the shorter term of §70. To be sure we don't make any mistakes, we have to read §1 quite broadly.

It is my opinion that artistic works (§1) include any photography where special attention has been given to elements such as composition, lightsetting and background. Since we have no court decisions, the only sensible way for us to go is to apply this careful interpretation. The short term (§70) should be applied to casual photograhies where the work of the photographer was little more than push the trigger.

We have had at least one case on dawiki recently, where we applied the above careful interpretation ([17]). That outcome was delete.

Does someone have some other interesting views? Nillerdk (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a coordinated Nordic copyright legislation. Photography was protected by separate legislation, because it was very rarely considered a work. This protection was for professional photography, like press photos, advertising photography and normal portraits - the kind of professional stuff where lighting etc was payed attention to. This image of Paavo Nurmi was considered ordinary photography by a Finnish authority. Artistic photographical works would be "artsy" prints, signed by the creator, produced in limited editions. But here we have just Lange sitting in a chair with a book in his hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The initiative to make this copyright of short term for photographic pictures might very well originate from the Nordic Council, but the countries have implemented this term independently, because the Nordic countries are independent countries! Why do you think you can apply Finnish court decisions in Denmark? Anyway, I actually think the decision of the Finnish court was very sensible. Anyone could have taken that photo - the composition, light etc. have been chosen by someone else than the photographer.

Another comment: Alone signing a photography definitly does not make it a work! Where do you get this from? Nillerdk (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get it from that just attention to composition, lightsetting and background would make something a work? Have you read any parliamentary documents from the legislative process of these special laws for photography? These laws were coordinated to make life easier for publishers etcetera. The Swedish committee that prepared the 1960 law wrote in its report that "pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" were examples of ordinary photographs. What I wrote about limited editions with signed and numbered prints comes from a parliamentary discussion about different tax rates for photographers and for artists. It would apply to artists like e.g. Andy Warhole, even when he used photographic methods. But this is just a guy in a chair, a photo without indication of artistic ambitions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but evidence is still lacking. It would be very useful to reach agreement, so we don't need to repeat this discussion for portraits. Thanks for the quote. However, I don't think this photo belong to the group "passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" (passport photos and other simple portrait photos). Notice the words annan enklare (other simple) - this is a professional portrait photo from a studio - not just some passport photo made at the police station by an automated process! Here are some Danish proponents for a "careful" interpretation: P. 6 in [18], [19] and [20]. Notice that they propose - as a rule of thumb - to distinghish based on whether the photographer is professional or not. Nillerdk (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a rule of thumb that professional photographers advocate, but it does not make sense. Amateur photographers do not need copyright protection. This legislation was introduced to protect professional photographers. The examples mentioned are press photographers, commercial photographers for advertisement, and simple run-of-the-mill portraits. Passport photos used to be made by a professional photographer, and this is also a routine portrait job. An example of a photographic-work portrait might be Garbo by Goodwin. It has artsy ambitions, and it is signed in the manner of a graphic artist. But this Lange photo is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view it is not important if the photographer is professional or not. And an example mentioned is that if a photo gets "cult status" or become famous it will become a work of art. I can't agree on that. The last link has an interessting point "what if everybody else could have taken a similar picture, is it then it 'just' a photo?". The answer is not a simple "yes" but in my view that could be one of the elements in evalueting if it is a work of art. So putting light on a person is not enough (everyone can do that) but if the light is special then I would say yes. --MGA73 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Well. Since we have no clear law or no clear statements form our courts (that I know) then both could be right. My guess would be that the light is put there on purpose but it could happen that he was just sitting under a lamp. On dawiki we have just had a major cleanup and we deleted in many cases (better safe than sorry). But I would be happy to get some new info so I could disagree with Nillerdk. --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Based on a couple of legal experts, it seems to me that Nillerdk is on the right track. Quoting from Birkmann, Anette & Dyekjær, Thomas Maagaard (2006) Håndbog i ophavsret (in Danish), Nyt Juridisk Forlag, p. 64 (in my own slightly rough translation): "Evaluating whether a photograph meets the threshold of originality, includes elements such as composition, the angle of the photo, the choice of scene, perspective, lighting etc.. An independent effort must have been made where multiple options were available. In practice, one will often look at whether the photographer has a professional education and uses photography to make a living. But of course nothing prevents an amateur from creating a photographic work." Quoting from Rosenmeier, Morten (2007) Ophavsret for begyndere (in Danish), Jurist- of Økonomforbundet, p. 52 (also in my own slightly rough translation): "The requirement for originality may be met if the photographer was creative in the choice of scene [...] or there may be originality in the timing [...] There may also be originality in the photographers choice of angle and positioning of the camera, the lighting, arranging the photographed people, depth of field etc.." This is in my view also in agreement with the quote Pieter gave above ("passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering") because a passport photo is a photo with very little room for creative input in composition, choice of scene and no room for other advanced portraiture techniques such as using various artefacts to show additional aspects of the person.
  Regarding this photo, it is clearly an arranged composition with the face in the golden section and his body following a diagonal line to the hand holding the book. And while you may argue that using a book to show that he is a librarian is too obvious a choice to be as much a work of art as the Garbo-photo, that as well as the composition are nonetheless deliberate and creative choices where multiple options were available, setting it apart from the likes of passport photos. Hemmingsen (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Based on the same arguments that have been made by Pieter Kuiper above. /FredrikT (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karadenizliler_selanik.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cholargus.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! I took the picture with my camera in a public place. Of course, there is such freedom in Greece. I am jurist, and this is the first time I listen to something like that. Could you explain what do you mean, because it makes no sense!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See COM:FOP#Greece - there is not, photos of artwork are not free for some purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Could be a copy of an ancient statue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Konstantinos_I_of_greece_Pedion_Areos_Athens.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Nonsense as elsewhere.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Don't know exactly when was the statue built, but the park around it was built in 1934 and that King died in 1923.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Docmorris MeineNeueApotheke.jpg

File is corrupt -Echtner (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Seems fine to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The file works fine for me as well. The license is questionable, though. The image is borderline PD-Ineligible, but I cannot say whether it crosses that line. If it is eligible, it is copyrighted by DocMorris. Therefore, we would need some OTRS clearance from them to publish it under the given license. --rimshot^talk 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to German standards, this is ineligible for copyright protection, see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 7

[edit] File:Fabian_Ramirez_FARC.png

First marked the image as missing source, but found a possible source myself: http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/rewards/115344.htm. However, the US Government offer 2.5 Million US$ according to the english Wikipedia entry w:en:Fabián Ramírez, it is unlikely that this photo was taken by an US Government employee and is public domain according to {{PD-USGov}}. Martin H. (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hauptwerk-schematic.jpg

This diagram includes a screenshot from copyrighted software. Jaksmata (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jaksmata.
Are you kidding ? This image seemed to be screenshot from PowerPoint® document, not the screenshot of copyrighted software. You must provide the evidence which show this image is copyrighted material.
My biggest fear is that you may be request to delete all organ images and articles other than your favorite organ (such like a Dodgers instruments or Alien calculator organ).--114.145.206.47 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken from here. The software depicted in the diagram, as well as the image of the organ are copyrighted by Milan Digital Audio LLC (a.k.a Hauptwerk). Fair use claims are not valid in commons, neither are derivative works. It has nothing to do with what I like (I actually like Hauptwerk), but I will nominate any copyright violation for deletion. If you don't want a picture of your favorite organ deleted, take the picture yourself instead of plagiarizing someone else's picture and claiming it's your own work as Kaspencer has done. Jaksmata (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a derivative. Eventually the "built-in" images might be replaced by free ones. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'm creating new image to replace center screenshot.
BTW: I have no interest on pipe organs at all. But, lack of fairness on w:en:Category:Organs (music) cause many problems on other language version of Wikipedia, so I am dedicating my spare time to solve the problems.
Jaksmata, please create new image yourself, before request to delete other manufacturer's images. And, please try to correct articles with fairness before you request to delete other manufacturer's articles.
It may be desired attitude in Wikipedia, IMO. --114.145.206.47 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

@114.145.206.47, stop posting (alleged) problems from other projects (such as :en). They have nothing to do with this rfd.

If there is an obvious copyright problem with an image on Commons, it has to be requested for deletion (and be deleted) independent of whether a replacement is available or not. You are free to save this file to your computer and rebuild it exclusively using free images. --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the original author has requested deletion both by "blanking out" the image, and by leaving an angry note on my w:en talk page. Jaksmata (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You should act with more cooperative sense, before other users begin to angry. --114.145.183.187 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Producer/MyTag

This license tag should be backed by an OTRS ticket. Additionally, the license tags should be subst'ed. --Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why this should be deleted, I am the producer of these shows, and this tag was created by an administrator here when I started using it. Actions such as this make me doubt the rational and intentions of some. This issue was discussed with Tarawneh an Arab admin in Commons who knows the situation and the laws in the ME, please discuss this issue with him first. If this tag is deleted then I request each and every photo that carries this license to be deleted too. I am a professional producer, and have worked in this profession for over 35 years. I own the rights for these photos, and for them to have the license altered in any way, Commons cannot have them.--Producer (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any permissions have to be signed by me, that was established long time ago with Tarawneh!--Producer (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's not because there is a deletion request that "we want it deleted". It gives us a place to discuss the problems inherent to the template, make sure they are solved and archive the discussion in a public, centralized place (unlike the discussion you might have had with Tarawneh, for instance). The main problem is that your permission should be based on an OTRS permission ticket, for the foundation to register your permission in an "official" way (in the present situation, only Tarawneh is convinced that the copyright holder actually gave his permission). What you should do: send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a permission like this one, giving a list of the covered works and the list of the licences you want to use. Maybe the OTRS agent processing the ticket will ask you for elements showing that you actually are the copyright holder, but please remember that anything between you and the OTRS system remains strictly confidential. The OTRS agent will only issue a "ticket", which we will include to this template, saying "it's ok, we can confirm that the user is the copyright holder and he has given a formal authorization". The procedure is needed here because the works have been published already, and there are probably many of them. I hope you understand better why I nominated the template for "deletion" (which is not really what I meant). NB: The permission e-mail can be send in Arabic. --Eusebius (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 8

[edit] File:Spud_talking_Fred_through.jpg

Probably not PD-self. PD-Gov? No source. 92.227.144.186 06:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Uploader on en has uploaded a series of images of the Avro Avrocar in the 1950s and 1960s as their own original work, but descriptions of the images in the article calls that into doubt. I have asked on their en:Wikipedia talk page for clarification of the situation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WhistlingSwanSign.jpg

Derivative work? --Liftarn (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per COM:FOP#Canada - this is not a pikiwiki upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

replyThis is a sign located that is permanently situated in a public place which makes it public domain. A cemetery tombstone, or cemetery sign is in the public domain, and can be photographced and placed online, the same as this sign. I can go back and take a landscape type photo to show the public place, rather than just the close up if it is bother some to folks.

Canadian Copyright Law: "It is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building" per COM:FOP#Canada.SriMesh | talk 04:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the term pikiwiki meansSriMesh | talk 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a sculpture or a work of artistic craftmanship. (My pikiwiki comment was about Israel, which has in principle the same FOP legislation as Canada, but where for example this image was kept because the uploaders have clout at the Foundation's office.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 132

My Lords, the freedom of the press and media is one of the bedrocks of democracy in this country. Although police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place and no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place. If this is the case that the given image under discussion is to be deleted please also tag these categories of images individually as well --> Category:Signs by country Category:Signs Category:Signage SriMesh | talk 01:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - While anyone may take photographs in public places, publication of such photographs is restricted, if they primarily (or only, as in this case) show a copyrighted work that does ot fall in one of the categories covered by COM:FOP#Canada. --Latebird (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kresba tužkou The Wraith.jpg

Fan art derived from TV. --Beren (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• delete, derivative work --Tlusťa (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - Leave, none to nothing in common with the derived --Pernak1 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Map-of-liguria-map-en-wiki.gif

[edit] File:Seychelles.png

Not a PD-self, a source is listed, also it's flag design in which a copyright has not expired --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:600px_Giallo_e_Nero_con_pallone_e_stemma_di_Arhem.png

COM:DW - Logo [21] Huib talk 18:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep This is a derivative of File:VlagArnhem.gif with a soccer ball superimposed on it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep same reason as above. also this nominator is a bit overly enthusiastic about nominating & deleting for surpious reasons Lx 121 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"overly enthusiastic about nominating & deleting" is no more a valid reason than "this user created an account just to nominate these images." Judge the DR submission, not the DR submitter. --Bastique ^demandez 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe the birds are free as in File:VlagArnhem.gif, but when you replace to colors and place a soccer ball in the middel of it, it becomes a look a like of the protected Vitesse logo. So when we are arguing now that it isn't a DW we can go further by those next steps:

• Commons:Fan art - It is important to understand that you do not avoid copyright infringement merely by re-drawing an existing copyright work, even if you introduce artistic additions or embellishments of your own. For example, if you redraw the map illustrations depicted in the novel The Lord of the Rings you infringe their copyright just as certainly as if you had photocopied them. You will also infringe the copyright in a movie if you copy creative elements or characters from the story in a manner similar to the way in which those elements or characters are presented on screen. - This is a redraw of the Vitesse logo so it is copyrighted. Huib talk 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Commons:Licensing - The following are not allowed: Copyrighted symbols, logos. - The colors the ball and the birds make the logo of Vitesse, the logo can be build on the vlag of arnhem for sure, but there are a lot of things added to the birds what gives it new originality what can make it copyrighted, what makes this images a copyvio.
• COM:SCOPE - Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. is out of scope - Your saying that this is a self created logo build on the flag, so it has no educational use, so it is out of scope.

I wanne hear how this three rules does not apply on this logo. Huib talk 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The copyrightability of this is questionable (changing colors of a flag and adding a PD image of a soccerball probably does not add sufficient creativity); the image, however, is trademarked, which does not preclude its upload-ability. Is it useful? That might be a different question. I'm inclined to keep in this case, unless we get some specific takedown demand. --Bastique ^demandez 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eichmann1942.jpg for sized enemy property. This image is public domain maybe in the US but in copyright in Germany and not ok on Commons. Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No debe ser borrado bajo ninguna circunstancia, estoy a favor que retiren esta solicitud de borrado por favor.--Wertlyueriuie1234592 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be OK for en-wiki, and maybe some others, so if deleting here, please restore there. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

w:File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg still exists. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Who would you pay royalties to? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this serious? See COM:PRP. Also copyright is not only an economic concept. Besides the heirs of Heinrich Hofmann e.g. draw on their copyright. Remember, that the author given here ("Greater German Reich government") is unassigned, the author is a person, not a government. --Martin H. (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Josef-mengele.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eichmann1942.jpg for sized enemy property. This image is public domain maybe in the US but in copyright in Germany and not ok on Commons. Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No debe ser borrado bajo ninguna circunstancia, estoy a favor que retiren esta solicitud de borrado por favor.--Wertlyueriuie1234592 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be OK for en-wiki, and maybe some others, so if deleting here, please restore there. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Whom would one ask for permission? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The author of the image or some copyright holder. And if he or she is unknown the image must be deleted. That's the way how this permission thingy works. --Noddy93 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 9

[edit] File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ladonia.jpg

• File:Coat of arms of Ladonia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

No where on the website does it say that the logo is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep the coat of arms of a "nation" is not controlled by copyright, by definition it's public property. if "ladonia" claims to be a nation, & not simply a work of fiction, its coat of arms is public; no nation "copyrights" their coat of arms, tho they may have regulations for useage; those regulations would only be legally binding inside that country". unless ladonia files a complaint, asserting copyright or declaring war, i think it's safe to keep :P Lx 121 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete The argument you just raised has no bearing on whether or not the image should be kept or deleted. From COM:PS: "arguments that amount to “we can get away with it”, such as the following, run counter to Commons’ aims". Tabercil (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Work by the artist Lars Vilks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:NBDrayton.jpg

Looks like a professional promo photo. I've left a msg on user's Wikipedia talk page, to get required info on true author, and copyright status. Unless/until that happens, this should be deleted. Even if user reps band, they might not rep photographer. Rob (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Why would Michael Hrizuk not be true author? Hires with exif data, I see no problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep When I nominated, the author (Michael Hrizuk) wasn't listed. It was added after. So, this nomination can be withdrawn. Note, the uploader is NOT the author, and ideally there should be an OTRS. --Rob (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete No "ideally" about it. An OTRS ticket is required. Werewombat (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep i'd like to see an otrs too, but the uploader is a good-faith noob; would somebody please walk them thru the proper procedures? & i don't mean just sending automated messages... 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 02:32, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Per COM:PS: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." We do have this discontinuity between the uploader's ID and the copyright holder's ID, which makes the situation clear in my book. Tabercil (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The following text was left on my talk page, and separately emailed to me, by the uploader. --Rob (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I wasn't quite sure how to fill some of the things out when I started, but I think I might've updated it correctly. The photographer was Michael Hrizuk and we do have a signed agreement that the rights have been fully turned over to me, so I can distribute as I like. I hope that clears it up.

This is my first time using Wikipedia, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all. It can be a little confusing. The 'Niki Barr' page really needed to be updated because a lot of the information was really out-dated and didn't portray the artist accurately. I'm updating new press, as well, and all will be credited.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikibarrband (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Is the above sufficient? Should I forward that to OTRS, or do we need an email from the photographer? --Rob (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to go to OTRS. Something that constitutes solid proof that the image can be hosted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete until an OTRS tag is applied. Wknight94 ^talk 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The existence of EXIF-data does not automatically mean that the uploader must be the author. The description that was stated by the uploader gives us "Niki Barr Press Photo" and obviously, the uploader is not the photographer. If there is no permission brought by the copyright owner, the image must be deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pahoehoe lava.jpg

possible copyright violation --GeoWriter (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Details of why I suggest this image should be considered for deletion (copied from File talk:Pahoehoe lava.jpg) :

This image was uploaded by User:Liftarn in 2006 from a National Science Foundation webpage http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/P2200054_h.jpg . It can also be viewed with copyright information at http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=57184&from=img

where the photo is credited as

• "Credit: Photo by Tom Pfeiffer / www.decadevolcano.net/VolcanoDiscovery.com".

The image usage details, from that web page are:

• "General Restrictions:

Images and other media in the National Science Foundation Multimedia Gallery are available for use in print and electronic material by NSF employees, members of the media, university staff, teachers and the general public. All media in the gallery are intended for personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only.

Images credited to the National Science Foundation, a federal agency, are in the public domain. The images were created by employees of the United States Government as part of their official duties or prepared by contractors as "works for hire" for NSF. You may freely use NSF-credited images and, at your discretion, credit NSF with a "Courtesy: National Science Foundation" notation. Additional information about general usage can be found in "Conditions".

Certain media carry additional restrictions placed on them by the owners and this information is listed under the "Special Restrictions" section on this page."

The "Conditions" section states:

"Unless otherwise stated, images and other media in the National Science Foundation Multimedia Gallery are available for use in print and electronic material by NSF employees, members of the media, university staff, teachers and the general public. All media in the gallery are intended for personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only. Certain media carry additional restrictions placed on them by the owners and this information is listed under the Special Restrictions section on the media page. In cases where a restriction states that the potential user must contact the owner prior to using the media, it is the responsibility of the potential user to follow through with this and obtain permission prior to using the media. Also, users of the gallery are required by law to honor all copyright restrictions indicated herein. These restrictions must be adhered to.

Any media used in the gallery must be credited as stated on the information screen that accompanies the media. It is a condition of the gallery that anyone using media from the gallery must include the credit information that accompanies the media.

Granting the right to use media from the NSF Multimedia Gallery does not explicitly or implicitly convey NSF's endorsement of the site or document in which the media is used or the entity using it.

Most of the media in the gallery have been donated by external sources for inclusion in the gallery. The owners have donated their media with the understanding that whoever uses the media will adhere to all restrictions placed upon the media regarding its use and will include the proper credit information when using the media. NSF does not "police" usage of the gallery and therefore must assume that users are following the guidelines stated here."

The "Special Restrictions" section states:

"This image is copyright. The owner of the image, Tom Pfeiffer, has granted permission to the National Science Foundation to use the image free of charge, for nonprofit/non-commercial use only. Any other use of this image (including, for example, newspapers, magazines, books or brochures) is strictly prohibited without the explicit permission from Tom Pfeiffer, who can be reached via the Web sites http://www.volcanodiscovery.com."

---

Also, the Wikimedia Commons permission tag of the image states :

• "This image has been released into the public domain by its author, User:Liftarn. This applies worldwide.

In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: User:Liftarn grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

There is no evidence that User:Liftarn is the author of this image and no evidence that permission has been granted by the author to release the image into the public domain.

The image is credited to Tom Pfeiffer who appears not to be an NSF employee and that suggests the image has not been made public domain by NSF.

--GeoWriter (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I would like to say that I am not the author of the picture, nor have I ever claimed to be. I only transfered the picture to Commons from en Wikipedia. // Liftarn (talk)

•  Delete: obvious copyviolation. Pfeiffer is not an employee of NSF and his website (http://www.decadevolcano.net/photos/photo_gallery.htm) does not state these photos are free for any use. Jappalang (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Very nice photo, but no evidence that Tom Pfeiffer has released this on a free license; Kingstonjr seems to have a history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pclinux_3d_cube.jpg

Are Yahoo logo, sky background, video or picture on the left application and graphics inside the cube all de minimis items? Dereckson (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Puppy301screenshot.png

Should the mpPaint picture be consired de minimis? Dereckson (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blue_&_green_of_Taiwan.png

This file has been tagged for speedy deletion with the following explanation, I think a regular DR is more suitable:

" The copyright is not owned by the uploader of the image as this image is closely affiliated to the logo of the DPP and is a symbol of the DPP and therefore cannot be considered PD and is automatically considered non-free, unless a) the DPP has released it into PD or B) ROC laws states that flags and symbols of this nature are PD. Previous Images Deleted Under this rationale Image:DPP.png Image:Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan flag.svg Image:Flag of the Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan).svg Image:Dpp.jpg Image:Taiwan2008ElectionPresidentResults.svg File:20071119160713 DPP.png File:20071119160713 DPP.gif  "

Eusebius (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Two files has been added to the list: File:Minjindang.png and File:Flag of Democratic Progressive Party.svg --Eusebius (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Since image is a derivative of the DPP and KMT flags, use the "ROC-government" public domain template if possible. The KMT flag should be ineligible for copyright, as per ROC copyright law; there should be a template lying around somewhere. Then, change details; Shizhao cannot claim ownership, as per w:en:Originality. If all else fails, can also be copied to EN Wiki and ZH Wiki prior to deletion, where a different licence tag may be used. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Przyklad.jpg

Uploader does not mention which copyright it has. Image is from a commercial site Wiese Fordelelemente.Probably copyright violation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've aprooval from Wiese Foerderelemente GmbH to using this photo in Wikipedia.

Hi Kik81, please follow the Commons:OTRS-procedure to transfer this approval to Wikimedia. Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Magnetyczny.jpg

Uploader does not mention which copyright it has. Image is from a commercial site Wiese Fordelelemente.Probably copyright violation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've aprooval from Wiese Foerderelemente GmbH to using this photo in Wikipedia. Kik81.

Hi Kik81, please follow the Commons:OTRS-procedure to transfer this approval to Wikimedia. Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Smaller version is here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Greenland_coat_of_arms.png

Was nominated as:" Copyrighted work. Danish coats of arms are not exempt from copyright, and this drawing is less than 20 years old." And deleted as a copyvio. Multichill (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I reuploaded the file and saw above deletion request which suggested it should be safe, afterwards I saw that it had been speedied. I see several issues still to be resolved: Arne List speaks of "courtesy of", has this been cleared yet? Is the design original enough to be copyrighted etc. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Keep This is heavily dependent on older representations, and does not pass the threshold of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 10

[edit] File:Scalplock_Mountain_Fire_Lookout.jpg

Previously tagged for speedy with the reason: "Image inappropriately tagged by NPS as public domainy if it is not PD, who is the author?". The source link is broken, but I'm not sure why the PD status would not be ok, if this is a picture of the National Park Service. Eusebius (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture was taken as part of the National Register of Historic Places nomination, which in this, and most similar cases, means that it was not done by Park Service employees. I originally found this on another portion of the Park Service website and later saw it on the National Register documentation associated with the lookout tower. I have corresponded with the Park Service on other National Register of Historic Places images, and they have stated that the public domain that they assert on their NRHP website is erroneous; all photo ownership remains with the author - in this case, Historical Research Associates of Missoula, Montana. To quote from an email from the NPS:

"We had originally thought this default would be appropriate for photographs but have since found out it is apparently the responsibility of the user to verify whether or not a photograph is in the public domain before using it.

We have never requested releases. This makes it quite difficult on your end to use these images." (emphasis mine)

National Register Information System Reference Desk

National Park Service

Since the image is not public domain, as I had originally thought, I have nominated it for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, then in the light of this information, unless somebody is motivated enough to sought permission from the Historical Research Associates of Missoula, Montana, I guess we should  Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on getting permission from some of the more centralized and high-quality sources - the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office for one, but I haven't found a contact for HRA yet - they were active in the 80s - and they're not high on the priority list. I think we'll eventually get a good number of these, but I'm trying to focus my efforts on the most prolific sources and can part with this one for now. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've located HRA and will get in contact with them about permissions, but in the meantime I'd prefer to go ahead and delete, as evidence of our good faith in this effort. It's easy enough to re-upload if and when permission is obtained. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to reupload, it can be undeleted by an admin once you get a permission. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kofferset_A_MK_III_(Marconi).jpg

Is this own work, looks like a scan Huib talk 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 11

[edit] File:Mapa_das_Linhas_Supervia.jpg

no is own work by uploader(Esta imagem pertence a supervia, sendo usada em panfletos, nos mapas de situação dos trens... Majtec (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Não acho que deva ser deletada. Trata-se de algo público (domain public) e útil à população. Abraços, Junius (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep PD-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 12

[edit] File:Sin_título-1.jpg

I'm unable to see any image 88.12.252.237 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to be OK now. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sin_título-1.jpg

Unnecessary image, most people knows how to specify the licenses 88.12.252.237 11:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to be used on a userpage to explain commons licenses. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Eddie_South.jpg

Licensing not reasonable. I highly doubt that the author/copyright holder is jazzbows.com -- ShaggeDoc talk? 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep "Price 50c" but no copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Old_Bicycle_Path_Railroad_Crossing_in_Medford_New_York.jpg

There's no evidence it was published before 1923, so more information is required to assume it's in the public domain. NE2 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It says Pre1907 on the caption, refer back to enwiki? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1907 is when it was created, which means nothing with respect to copyright (except indirectly as imposing a rough upper bound of around 2000 on the death of the author). --NE2 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also added an e-mail address that leads to a member of the history department of the Patchogue-Medford Library for more information. I don't know why you never considered using it before tagging the image for deletion. In any case, I've written to the Patchogue-Medford Library myself to request some pre-1923 publication dates, and I'm still waiting for a reply. ----DanTD (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another link that proves this bridge was built in 1907, which means the image was taken before then. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand; the date the photo was taken has no bearing on its copyright status. We need to know when it was published. --NE2 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you had read my earlier post, you'd see that I do understand. Why won't you write to Patchogue-Medford Library for more info, if you haven't done so already. The address is right there in the image description. ----DanTD (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove that the image you uploaded is public domain. --NE2 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who is casting doubts about whether it is or not. ----DanTD (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:AP Cygne.jpg

Why should this image be in the pd? Not even the author is given... --Chaddy (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• It may fall in a certain time-frame when works are considered PD. The original author is probably lost to time, and is simply today an anonymous photographer. I suggest retaining the image on an historical basis. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete. Say the picture was taken in the 1910s (the Dying Swan was created in 1905); if the photographer lived for 40 years after that, he died in the 1950s and his work is protected until the 2020s. The picture could fall under {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but we have no proof of that since Pavlova performed in many countries and was pictured by non-Russian photographers (see here a German postcard, also on Pavlova as the Dying Swan). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep This image is in use on a lot of merchandise; are their images from here? Anyway, Time Life has this mounted original postcard portrait which they do not know anything about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 13

[edit] File:Artwork_by_El_Lissitzky_1919.jpg

Lissitzky died after June 22, 1941 and did work work during the Great Patriotic War. This image is protected by Russian copyright law and he was an Russian. Licence was chanded a few weeks ago PD-Russia -> Pd-Ukriane ([22]) just to avoid deletion. sугсго 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems most likely that this is copyrighted until december 2011, 70 years from his death, but is NOT PD currently -  Delete - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Alva Blanchard Adams.jpg

Redundant image with unclear copyright status. {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} image that lists the Library of Congress as its source. The LOC listing for the image [23] shows the copyright status has not been evaluated. A suitable replacement is available on commons. --Allen3 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lima_cathedral.jpg

The license at the source, seen through the webarchive http://web.archive.org/web/20071023182643/http://www.morguefile.com/archive/terms.php says, that the license is revocable. This is not public domain and not a free license as required. Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Non-transferable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Памятник_ВОВ.jpg

This is a contemporary sculpture (erected after World War II) in Russia. But there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. See COM:FOP for details. Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:User talk:Newportm/Archive template

[edit] July 14

[edit] File:BY_Vitebsk_square_of_eternal_flare.jpg

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument installed in 1974. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Aquamacs_screenshot.png

Non free software screenshot. Or maybe the OS features are considered as de minimis ? Dereckson (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X is obviously not free. But the OS features here are very de minimis. 87.231.105.237 11:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And the background wallpaper, de minimis too? --Dereckson (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Shishkov_-_Novodevichiy.jpg

Essential source information is missing High Contrast (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep 1874. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bubba_Gump.JPG

Image focuses on a presumably copyrighted logo. De minimis doesn't apply due to the centrality of the non-free content. Powers (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I added a {{trademark}} notice. Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hauptwerk_Virtual_Organ_(schematic).jpg

Collage of a number of images of unknown photographers. Claims to be a version of suspect file File:Hauptwerk-schematic.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All your request lack evidences. You must provides the evidens for your claims.

BTW: It is an easy thing to replace all images with GPL/CC version.

And your client can never achieve the vandalism. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This question is legitim. It's to the uploader to provide elements demonstrating the schema use free images, giving the pictures sources. --Dereckson (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not delete. This request ignores the fact that the author of original image File:Hauptwerk-schematic.jpg said images in the picture are all his own work (he photographed his own organ). --Shoulder-synth (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This image is an exact duplicate of a file already nominated. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hauptwerk-schematic.jpg‎ I have provided links over there that prove this file is a derivative of copyrighted software screenshots. Also, this image was uploaded by a user who is impersonating me. Jaksmata (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jaksmata, Your old request claimed

The image was taken from here. The software depicted in the diagram, as well as the image of the organ are copyrighted by Milan Digital Audio LLC (a.k.a Hauptwerk).

The software image was already replaced, and your point out was already cleared.

Your claims are inconsistent. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the licensing issues at hand. Look at Commons:Licensing and Commons:Screenshots. If you take somebody else's work and modify it, that does not make it your work. The picture of the organ console included here is actually three photographs spliced together, copyrighted by Hauptwerk, and included in their software. You can't edit the picture and then claim that it is entirely your work - Hauptwerk is still the copyright holder of the photographs even though they were changed a bit.

I misspoke earlier when I said that "this is an exact duplicate" - upon closer examination, I see that it has been modified, however, this is still copyrighted by someone other than the person who uploaded it.

Even if this picture is corrected, I'm still going to vote to have it deleted because the uploader clearly is trying to impersonate me and confuse others with a deliberately similar user name. Jaksmata (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The story of Jaksmata seemed to be the product of his imaginations. I zoomed up the console image and checked it. Keyboard and pedals seem to be same as photographs on left side, and rest seemed to be drawing or computer generated images. Some GPL software for GNU/Linux has similar interfaces, and Hauptwerk may be derived from these. --114.164.5.107 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ubuntudust.jpg

No source for backgound picture. Are Firefox icon and Google page screenshot de minimis, especially when they could easily be replaced by free items? Dereckson (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Warsaw_Symphony_Orchestra.jpg

It looks like copyright violation because the picture is evidently old and the source given is "plakat" (advertising). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Old_greek_biometric_passport.jpg

Not PD-ineligible. Both the photograph and the passport design itself may be eligible for copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It is a design common all over the EU, and I believe same regulations as EU money applies to passport covers too. Moreover, we cannot identify the person that owns it.--The daydreamer (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So the appropriate copyright tag for the passport is... {{PD-EU-I-believe}}? And the photo? I don't know why you mention that we can't identify the person who owns the passport, since I didn't mention anything related to that as a reason for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Keep This is part of an administrative document issued by the Government and, therefore, one of the rare cases where {{PD-GreekGov}} applies. Sv1xv (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - no creative work on it... just the coat of arms and words written with a very (VERY) common font. This is a clear exageration of copyright policies. In Italian we use to say about this kind of behaviour: "essere più realista del re". Dantadd✉ 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 15

Add {{delete|REASON(mandatory)}} on the page Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|07}} ~~~~ On the log, add : {{Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07}}

[edit] File:Number_13.jpg

1922 is not PD in UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment - well... yes and no. If it was published in 1922, then yes, it's PD. If it was published before 1939, or the author died before 1939, then yes, it's PD. However, proof would be nice... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete: to qualify for Commons, it has to be PD in US and UK, since the country of origin would very likely be UK if this photo was published. If the author is known, he has to have died before 1926; if unknown, the photo must be published before 1926 (or remain unpublished until 1993).[24] This is to comply with the URAA (UK's 70-year limits must expire before 1 Jan 1996). As Hitchcock was likely not yet a "big-shot" film maker in 1922, this photo would likely not be published. The quality of the image suggests it is scanned from a book, likely a recent publication that dug up those old photos from archives. Unless information is forthcoming to comply with those conditions, delete. Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Found that the photo here is uploaded from http://labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html. This site was given the photo by Ray Ridley as early as 23 September 2006. Even its text is blatantly copied for the description here. Therefore, the earliest known publishing of this photo is 7 December 1949 in The Cinema Studio, which would mean copyprotection until 2019 in UK. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Look here: Hitchcock / by Francois Truffaut; with the collaboration of Helen G. Scott. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, c1984. UCB Main PN1998.A3 H5731 1984, UCB Morrison PN1998.A3 H5731 1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.232.169 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

  I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you mean that the book states Hitchcock was filming Number Thirteen in 1922, that is a given and moot point to make. The issue is when was this photograph published and who took it, not over the plausibility of the photo. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo from 1922, publication rights have expired, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Light_bottle.jpg

Contemporary glass artwork. No freedom of panorama in Italy. See COM:FOP#Italy Teofilo (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, as the uploader, if this is a copyright violation, but i thought that a w:light fixture, which this bottle is, as an utilitarian object could bee freely photographed. If this is not it might ok, it could also be useful to see this file from the same author. Tm (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to policy taken from another comment made by Teofilo on another DR. Could´t this Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs be applied in this case? Tm (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any information tending to prove that this light bottle is being used to provide actual lighting in the dark, rather than as a decorative object displayed as a work of art, as part of an art exhibition ? Teofilo (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a look at the Italian law and see what the Italian law says about this sort of works (it is difficult to kwow if the artist is Italian, or if the picture was taken in Italy, but considering this work as an italian work is the best guess we can do).

No I don’t have any definitive evidence only conjectural evidence and suppositions. The flickr page doesn’t provide a lot of information except a tag "light" and a album called lightning that have some light fixtures next to this one. The exif shows (don’t know why I doesn’t appear on commons) that this photo was taken in spot metering mode, that measures a exposure value taking into account only a small percentage what the sensor "sees", and with a d90 that as 11 exposure and focusing areas to select, and with a 200 ISO and an aperture of f/5.6 and without flash, this was taken at a slow speed and probably with some support (do to being sharp, with a tripod, steady hand or stabilized lens) and that might exclude an art gallery or a museum.

Also the areas that are overexposure seem that are coming from inside the bottle and that might indicate the presence of a light bulb, despite no electric cord visible. Despite this there is no context of where this was taken. It might be taken in Italy as this user only as an image taken in Germany, and be an Italian product. The question remains if this product is purely a utilitarian object or if this is a work of art, as this one’s. So I think that it might be prudent to view the Italian law about this. Tm (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If we use what is written in Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs, I think it is probable that the product is copyrighted, because sculptural features that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspect are copyrighted. A lamp needs a lampshade or something to diffuse the light in order to provide lighting, without dazzling people's eyes. But there is no functional need to give it a bottle-shape. This bottle shape is the expression of the artist's aesthetic views. For example, a light could have a light diffuser with the shape of Mickey-mouse, and Mickey mouse would still remain copyrighted by Disney. (Unless scientists can prove that bottle-shaped lamps consume less energy, or help people with stress recover from stress, which would give it a utilitarian energy-saving or medical purpose) Teofilo (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If this as to be deleted, so be it to be on the safe side of Italian copyright law. I remember that once I so a light fixture, made by a designer, that was made inside a chicken ration dispenser, so that shape and format was "expression of the artist's aesthetic views" with no underlying utilitarian aspect (at least at first sight), so this might be the same case, and so as to be deleted. Tm (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The question that must be answered is What is this object?. If it's a lighting fixture, then it can be photographed without permission. If it is a piece of sculpture then it cannot. Unfortunately, just looking at the picture doesn't give enough information you to tell. --Simonxag (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I´ve uploaded a higher resolution file from the same source, and that higher resolution might answer some the doubts. Tm (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Keep level of creativity seems to be to low to me to talk of a sculpture --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep seems like a mass-produced lamp to me, you can buy a hundred at your nearest home depot or any similar store. Level of artistic expression I think is to low to qualify as original. Mass produced housewares don't hold same copyright status as an indivudal artwork, no evidence this isn't mass-produced. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Ordinary lighting fixture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Casta2.jpg

It seems to me unlikely that this drawing was made solely for the purpose of using it in Wikipedia. If the uploader made this as part of his job, we need the permission from his employer. If it was already published, we need to be sure that the book publisher is not already enjoying exclusive publishing rights. Teofilo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The user has uploaded 2 pictures, this and a photo of a similar subject. They need to say who they are and how they came to hold the copyright on this material. Otherwise "own work" just sounds like naiveté from a new user. --Simonxag (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete I doubt "own work" of all of his images. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dep2.JPG

Electrical Lighting design, FOP only applies to buildings? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep What is copyrighted here; just some parade. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DisneylandMar6_051.jpg

Interior design - FOP only applies to buildings Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the depicted object character of creative work, which can be copyrighted? FOP refers to copyrights of art or similar creative work, not to industrial rights etc. --ŠJů (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From the look of the image, it's a 'themed' design.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn, Misunderstanding of US FOP. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem very educationally useful, but it is in use, so  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hillburn-dreamer-1955.ogg

No evidence given to support no-notice claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So why did you transfer it to commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Barbie_warhol_popart.jpg

Possibly Derivative of Warhol artwork... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1.  Keep - I don't think its possible to claim rights on a style, I made images like that also years ago, so it could be a derivative work of my old work also. I don't see the problem with this image. Huib talk 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Inspired in style by" doesn't make it a copyright violation. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this original art by a presumably non-notable artist is actually in scope for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When I checked it, it was in use on 3 wiki's. Huib talk 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree ideas cannot be copyrighted, but I wonder about scope, too. Huib, can you remember how it was used? I can only see it on a talk page on en: now. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Delete of course! --Guil2027 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fulla_in_box.jpg

Regardless of claims - Toy design Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be another of the frivolous claims by Sfan00 IMG, who specialises in this sort of thing. While apparently acting in good faith, he/she is a frustrated copyright lawyer, whose hobby is to look for problems where none previously existed. A sad use of a person's time on Wikipedia.--62.31.150.109 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete.--Guil2027 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reinstate at local project: Get this restored locally on enwiki, where the original uploader has suggested it may be fair-use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - Copyrighted toy design. One of the few cases where Sfan00 IMG actually turns out to be right, so the personall attack further above is entirely uncalled for. --Latebird (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Obviously protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MapaSBASE.JPG

I think that this photo is a {{derivative}} work of a poster of Subterráneos de Buenos Aires Sociedad del Estado (SBASE). Hence, it is copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RussianKeyboardSetup.PNG

Windows screenshot. Background from unknown source. Dereckson (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Are you worrying about those stars?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Capture-2.png

AVRS (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bzip2-logo.png

AVRS (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Clarion1.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep I think murals and graffiti should normaly be no problem for our project. Who should claim copyrights for illegal actions? They should be accepted as a kind of decoration which can be found everywhere on trains, buildings ... And the authors intention is to publish his work and release it in a kind of PD. He could never reach a kind of ownership, IMO. If the owner of the decorated object tolerates Graffiti as a kind of decoration it should be accepted as a part of the architecture, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete The work is signed "BD" (see flickr) and dated, but here the photographer cropped out the artist's signature and licensing it as own work. Apalling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Clarion2.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Copyright violation of artistic work by Tania Esmeralda and Emily Butterfly; compare http://www.flickr.com/photos/phunk/2674609552/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:University_of_Glasgow.jpg

Possibly copyvio if from source given - http://www.gla.ac.uk/legal/copyright/ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete In use only on a user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WillisWard.JPG

Can't find indication of CC-BY-SA release on source listed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 16

[edit] Maps by 52 Pickup

• File:German losses after WWI.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-AustroPrussianWar-annexed.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-AustroPrussianWar.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DB-Frankfurt.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DB-PrussiaProvs-1818.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Baden.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Bavaria.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Brunswick.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Hesse.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Lippe.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Prussia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Saxony.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-DR-Wuerttemberg.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-GermanConfederation.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-GreaterHesse.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-NDB.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Brandenburg.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Brandenburg.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-EastPrussia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-EastPrussia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Hanover.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Hanover.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-HesseNassau.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-HesseNassau.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Hohenzollern.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Hohenzollern.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-JKB.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-JKB.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-LowerRhine.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-LowerRhine.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-LowerSilesia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-LowerSilesia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-PWP.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-PWP.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Pomerania.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Pomerania.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Posen.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Posen.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-ProvPrussia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-ProvPrussia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-RhineProvince.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-RhineProvince.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Saxony.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Saxony.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-SchleswigHolstein.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-SchleswigHolstein.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Silesia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Silesia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-UpperSilesia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-UpperSilesia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-WestPrussia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-WestPrussia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Westphalia.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Prussia-Westphalia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Anhalt.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Baden.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Bavaria.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Braunschweig.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Hesse.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Lippe.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-MeckSchwerin.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-MeckStrelitz.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Oldenburg.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Prussia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-PrussiaProvs-1920.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-SchaumburgLippe.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Thuringia.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Waldeck.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-WR-Wuerttemberg.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map - Deutscher Bund 1820.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Map-Germany-1945.svg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/IEGMaps

These are all of the map images uploaded by me while I was active here. They are derivative works, where the original map data ultimately came from http://www.ieg-maps.uni-mainz.de.

There are other maps like this by other uploaders here (see old deletion request above, i think there are even more than listed there, too) and since they were also IEG derivatives, I thought that it was okay to upload the above images - although I believe I was the first person who actually stated the link to IEG, with the necessary attribution as requested on the IEG site [26]:

Es wird darum gebeten, dass auch bei der Erarbeitung neuer Karten (z.B. von Diagrammkarten), die auf Grundlagen-Karten des Servers beruhen, auf die Quelle IEG-MAPS - Kartenserver am Institut für Europäische Geschichte Mainz hingewiesen wird.

And I thought that then everything was kosher, especially since the use is apparently non-commercial - something that I now doubt after having left WP, but that's another story.

I quit WP over a year ago. During that time, the above deletion request was made. Since I was no longer active here, I only saw the deletion notification by chance. I made my comments [27] and then left again, not following the remainder of the debate since I had nothing else to say, and left the decision to delete with the admins. In the end, nothing was deleted.

Today, just out of curiosity, I went back to the IEG site to see if I had missed anything in the terms and conditions. Indeed I had:

Für die Veröffentlichung von Karten (Druck oder elektronisch) ist eine kostenpflichtige Lizenz für die den Karten zugrunde liegenden digitalen Grundgeometrien notwendig.

So for the geodata that governs the borders, a licence fee should be paid if you want to publish the maps (in print or electronically) - and that is even for derivative works. If I had noticed this before I would never have uploaded anything. This was a stupid mistake of mine, for which I can only apologise. I am still no longer active here but I wish to undo the damage that I have done.

Therefore, I insist that all the above listed images uploaded by me be deleted immediately as copyright violations. 52 Pickup (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Those restrictions are not copyright restrictions. Coordinates cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous killer argument - Then NO single map or geodatabase could be copyrighted. The same way I could argue: Books consist of collections of letters and therefore cannot be copyrighted :) Again: maps don't represent just simple collections of coordinates (facts) - instead maps are a always a result of surveying, remote sensing, digitizing, investigating etc etc - thus contain a lot of creative work (even maps with border lines).

Even if we would see them as geodata (pure coordinates) then there are still database copyrights to be applied. Look at the discussions going on at Openstreetmap.org - then you'll get an impression of the difficulties in finding free mapping sources.

Anyway, I don't know whether it makes much sense to open up the discussion again. Unfortunately Users like 52Pickup might have some problems because of the Terms-of-Use-Violations been made while copying these maps. --Alexrk2 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If a good-faith uploader faces legal problems, a courtesy deletion will not be a big problem, in order to "clean" the user account. (However, images might then be re-uploaded by a sock, if the copyright claim is seen as invalid.) --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not facing any legal problems, but I want to avoid future ones for a mistake on my part, even though I no longer have anything to do with WP or Commons. No loose ends. 52 Pickup (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Openstreetmap.org can have its own standards, but we do not need to apply them here. This case is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Norway maps by user:Jensens. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I've no expertise in maps/map data. However, I really don't like the tune of Yann's closing statement. The next logical step then is the (at least apparent) desinterest of the WMF in Dcoetzee's problem. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So everyone making his own law (standards)? That's dangerours relativism. Commons should have legitimate interests in achieving legal certainty. And the law is for Commons the same as for me or for OSM. Not? We won't copy maps from eg Google Maps either. But the only difference between Google and those cases is: Google has more money for lawyers. The overall consequence of such relativism is that the rights of small content providers would be regularly harmed. The standard you mentioned thus based on the motto "They can't defend themselves so lets ignore their copyrights" - btw at least in Germany there are severall court decisions about that copying or digitizing maps does harm database copyright - because the map itself contains a geodatabase. If it would be allowed to copy any map, no map maker could produce a map anymore - like no author could write a book if books couldn't be copyrighted. However, I fear Túrelio is right: even if Commons would delete files just because of TOU-violations, other "not so good-faithed" users would re-upload them again. I don't like the consequence either: once a file has been uploaded, the uploader has no chance to withdraw them. --Alexrk2 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: the law in Norway might be different than in Germany or US (I don't know). Just because in Norway something might be legal, it does not mean, that it is safe to upload to Commons - instead it just means, it is safe to upload to NO-wikipedia. Commons looks for a more common legal basis to comply with various countries. --Alexrk2 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I'm in negotiations right now with the Institute of European History to donate various parts of their map collection to Wikipedia (see here) and replace these files. Their interests basically are a) referencing the true authors at the file description pages and b) preserve the original quality and accuracy of the data (within the present maps there are some errors due to the process of copying) --Alexrk2 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Austin_Kimberley.jpg

Scanned magazine page - see original uploader's comments for a similar image at the bottom of this enwiki discussion Peripitus (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep If you had actually bothered to read the text on the page that you have supplied a link to, you will find that there is no mention of this image on that link. Also, this the reason why you can't find any source for any of the rest of my images using websearch programs is because NONE of them are copied from either magazines or websites/blogs/etc!! - User:Dreamweaverjack

• Currently no stated source.  Delete unless the uploader makes a clear statement that he is the original photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete TinEye finds it here, with registration plates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mbr-wappen.jpg

No Copyright, Licensing Conflict. Is has to be deleted, now. Apfel-wie-Birne (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The User Apfel-Wie-Birne nominated the corresponding article on the german wikipedia ([28]) for deletition "because it was edited" - aparently he did not understand the wiki principle, and now tries to remove the texts he posted on wikipedia (with valid GFDL-Licensing on OTRS) again. This speedy deletition nomination appears to be connected to that. See [29] (german) for dialog about that. --84.148.93.159 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (--Funkysapien on de.wikipedia)

[edit] File:Bio_agencies.jpg

Incorrect licensing. Seems to be based on a photo from Der Spiegel, but is this eligible for copyright protection? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fem_biljoner_Mark.jpg

Google.se is not a verifiable source, the uploader is obviously not the copyright holder, so the GFDL tag is invalid. Is the image in the public domain, and if so, why? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not right. It might be PD for reasons such as age or because of who created it, but it definitely is not in the public domain for lacking original authorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to German standards (see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg), this would never have been protected by copyright. But anyway, if it had been, it would now be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Currency says nothing about the former currencies of EU countries, which is a shame. I have no idea what copyright policy was in Germany at that time (Weimar republic?). --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is no official currency, but a kind of bonuspaper, maybe during inflation, by a German railroad company. I think it is PD because that company doesn't exist any longer and it is no artwork, but I am not shure. It is older than 80 years. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nokia_Nst-4_with_skype.jpg

The main subject of the photograph is a copyrighted, non-free software interface. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even the screen shows a copyrighted program is it actually eligible for copyright? {{PD-text}} may applies here even I wouldn't keep it because of the bad quality and the low-level educational usability.

--D-Kuru (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine point whether gradients and such in the user interface which are not clearly visible here because of the poor quality are copyrightable or not. If the UI were the only issue, I might withdraw the nomination. Having looked at some of the other contributions from the user, however, I'm also concerned that they may not even be the photographer, as several of their uploads were commercial product images found online and tagged with false authorship information. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at all the user's contributions:

• Nokia ST logo1.PNG - What das Star Torrent mean? Sounds to me like an unimportent torrent side to me which's logo don't need to be kept on Commons. Maybe it's a sort of circuts for Nokia phones.
• Nokia ST logo2.PNG - As above
• Nokia ST logo3.PNG - As above
• Nokia Star Torrent logo1.PNG - As above; sorce= Nokia.com
• Nokia Star Torrent logo2.PNG - As above
• Nokia Star Torrent logo3.PNG - As above
• Nokia Nst-2.jpg - Deleted (fair use)
• Nokia Nst-2 (2).jpg - Possibly self taken image
• Nokia OS Seven logo.jpg - Deleted (logo)
• Nokia Nst-4 keyboard.jpg - Possibly self taken image
• Nokia Nst-4 pop-port.jpg - As above
• Nokia ST OS seven 7.0v.jpg - As above
• Nokia ST OS seven 7,0v (1).jpg - As above; nearly duplicate of the image above
• Nokia ST OS seven 7,0v.jpg - As above; nearly duplicate of the second image above
• Nokia ST.jpg - Possibly self taken image
• Kupcinskas Nokia ST.jpg - Image of some guy but I challange that this image is self taken
• Nokia ST vs Panasonic camera.jpg - Possibly self taken image; bad quality
• Nokia ST in Real life.jpg - As above; bad quality
• Nokia Nst-4 cam010.jpg - As above; bad quality
• Nokia-7373.jpg - Deleted (fair use)
• Nokia-7370.jpg - As above
• Logitech E2500 webcam.jpg - Possibly self taken image
• Nokia Nst-4 keypad.jpg - As above
• [[:File:Nokia Nst-4 my own button, loud speaker, IrDA port.jpg|Nokia Nst-4 my own button, loud speaker, IrDA port.jpg]] - Deleted (no licence)
• Nokia Nseries Nst-4 3G slider (2008.12.26).jpg - Possibly self taken image
• Nokia Nst-4 with skype.jpg - As above; bad quality
• Skype on Nokia Nst-4.jpg - As above; bad quality
• Skype 3.5 screenshot on Nokia Nst-2.png - Deleted (fair use)

The whole uploads look to me as if Nokia ST would be some side but which is not important. I would delete all images; espacially those with a bad quality and those who are nearly duplicates
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-text}}--Avron (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 17

[edit] Commons:Deletion_requests/duplicates_renamed

• File:Lake_Sevan-sunrise.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:WinterStorm.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Wow-eye.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Tea-grower-hangzhou.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Xian-temple-08.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:HangzhouEarlySpring.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:HangzhouEarlySpring.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Tea-grower-hangzhou-edit.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Children_on_tropical_beach.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Lichen_on_rocks_near_ocean.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Wonder_eye_(original).jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Isthmus_example.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Shrine_of_the_Bab_with_clouds.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Shrine_of_the_Bab_-_panorama.png (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:The_Sentinel_-_Sequoiadendron_giganteum.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

These were all created by by me, JalalV and I would like to delete the older versions of these files. I replaced the earlier versions with exact duplicates (and the same name) and am happy if the new uploads stay on wikimedia. I would like the original files deleted because they have my real name as the author, not my username, and I don't want my real name tied to all these pictures (file history, author) with search engines like google. --JalalV (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

done [x] Please check, if I hit all cases of your real name --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks! all done... JalalV (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ojo.jpg

Promotional way - but what about the file? Otourly (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think we would need permission to be sent to OTRS; failing that,  delete. –Tryphon^☂ 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep I see no reason to doubt that this is own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Puzz3dny.JPG

Photo of a commercially produced copyrightable scale model / sculpture. The fact that it was assembled by the user's friend does not change the fact that the original copyright belongs to Hasbro. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Info: I've asked the original uploader if they'd like to have the original version undeleted on the English Wikipedia so that it might be used under a fair use claim there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me in the loop. Unfortuneatly Id like to keep it but i think your right about the image. I cannot really justify it as being free (though id like too). The only thing i can think of is that it helps describe the notability of the puzzles and what they are and considering that one puzzle was their rarest and hardest to find i thought it would be appropriate to explain the product, however; would possibly an alternative photo merely showing the pieces (not identifying the paticular puzzle) be a better image? Or would that still be against copy right? Willing to discuss ( I dont have a commons login so ive responded on my talk page 65.94.241.101 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ill try this only because i like to try things, but would this be acceptable?

Hasbero has released no such images into the public domain, and is unlikely that a replacement image could be created that would adequately provide the same information as the product is rare *The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article 'Puzz 3d' *The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the puzzle *The use of this image neither detracts from the puzzle nor inhibits its saleability in any way since the product is discontinued *The image does not limit Puzz 3d’s (Hasbero) ability to sell the puzzle65.94.241.101 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored en:File:Puzz3dny.JPG and added a non-free use rationale loosely based on the existing description and what you wrote here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the image of a sculpture or some other three-dimensional artwork on permanent display in a public place? If so, it might qualify as a free image under freedom of panorama rules. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 06:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it's not. It's a three-dimensional foam puzzle sold in toy stores. While the puzzle itself depicts buildings that would be covered by FoP, the manner of depiction seems clearly creative enough to be eligible for copyright. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CPM_Image.gif

No evidence/indication Cognition corporation authorised the release of this under CC-By-SA Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. I, an employee of Cognition Corporation, authored this image and both I and my company approve of its being used here. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarda sarda (talk • contribs) 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I see no problem, uploader's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CPM_PLM.gif

No indication Cognition Corporation authorised relase of this under license shown Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment per this author response, there is no copyright problem; however, this seems outside project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nintendo_Gamecube_logo_2.png

Also:

• File:Nintendo Gamecube symbol logo.png
• File:Nintendo Gamecube symbol logo.svg
• File:Nintendo Gamecube logo 1.png

Does this really not meet the threshold of originality? Huib talk 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete - Copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would say  keep, for me it's just a cube; I fail to see any originality in that. –Tryphon^☂ 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete. File:Necker cube.svg is a cube in the {{PD-shape}} sense. File:Nintendo Gamecube logo 2.png is not what you would typically expect to get if you asked someone to draw a cube. To me, it rather seems like a stylized way of rendering a cube inside a cube using a creatively selected and arranged set of two-dimensional tiles, using both the tiles themselves and the spacing between them to create a visual effect. Let's also not forget that the test of original authorship in US copyright law is not concerned with uniqueness but rather with whether the work was independently created. Therefore, to demonstrate that the Gamecube logo contains no original authorship, you'd need to show not only the pre-existence of an essentially identical representation, but also that the Gamecube logo was based on awareness of that pre-existing representation. In reality, I believe you will find even the former to be false. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep This is just a kind of hexagom with some parts erased to get this effect. The rhombus is a geometric symbol so It's PD. And the text uses this font Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. The Copyright Office guidelines say: A certain minimal amount of original creative authorship is essential for registration in Class VA or in any other class. Copyrightability depends upon the presence of creative expression in a work, and not upon aesthetic merit, commercial appeal, or symbolic value. Thus, registration cannot be based upon the simplicity of standard ornamentation such as chevron stripes, the attractiveness of a conventional fleur-de-lys design, or the religious significance of a plain, ordinary cross. Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations. I'm a bit borderline on this... it is a combination of two cubes to cutely form a "G" and "C" in negative space. It is aesthetically pleasing, but to me that is still just a "simple combination of a few standard symbols with minor linear or spatial variations". So I'll go for a weak  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said befored and showed on it's description the text is only based on typeface fonts. I even created this fantasy logo (GameCube opctical disc doesn't have a logo). As you can on the GameCube and Optcial disc texts they are standardized. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete As much as I would like this logo to be PD, I don't think it qualifies as "simple geometry". -- ZanderZ (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A Hexagon can be even made on Microsft Windows, then you upside it down, print screen and make the other forms on Microsoft paint. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

HOW you make it isn't the issue. To take an example, if I copied a book and published it, it would still be a copyright violation whether I used a pen or a pencil. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about the copyrightability of a hexagon. We're talking about the copyrightability of the Gamecube logo, which is not just a simple hexagon. If you asked someone to draw a hexagon, they wouldn't draw the Gamecube logo. Any raster graphic could be described as a combination of simple geometric shapes, since pixels are squares, but at some point, it goes from being a simple combination of simple geometric shapes to a complex (and copyrightable) combination of simple geometric shapes. And yes, it is possible to create such complexity even using software as useless as MS Paint. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is so original! Let's pick a geometric shape, put the same shape in it, erase some parts so everyone will think this is original. And btw, this is a very simple version of the real logo. The real logo is this. This one is original because it's 3D and metal like. Mizunoryu's version is his original and simple version of the original. So, if I could vote, I’d say  Keep 201.95.209.177 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PS:. Nice comparition, mattbuck.

What do you guys think about the images below. I think they are quite similar with GameCube's logo. I fail to see any originality on this logo. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first two are fine as self-created artwork, #3 is also fine, but due to German Freedom of Panorama rules rather than whether the logo is copyrightable or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep I couldn't see any problem in here. (copyvio???) MachoCarioca (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep The images posted here by Mizunoryu shows clearly Gamecube's logo is not original, consiting of the same shapes looking like some cubes. Quintinense (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Guitar_hero_logo.png

While I agree this is just text, I feel it is stylised enough to meet the threshold of originality, and is thus a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The font is freely availabe and it's 3D perpective is just a shade of gray on it's edge to give this resemblance. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I don't think it is stylized enough. The lines all still follow the shape of the letters, which are not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete anyone who thinks that this doesn't meet the very low threshold of originality as required by US copyright law needs to get a clue. It's not a simple typeface. --David Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, the U.S. has a substantially high threshold for text. Rocket000 (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a typeface. Simple or not, they are not protected in the U.S. Fonts like Dingbats (since they are not letters) are the exceptions, since they aren't really typefaces. All others are not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the clue. Many gothic and medieval fonts are more stylized than this one. And many of them we have in our operating system and are freely available. Fraktur is ana example of it. And it has many derivative typeface based on itself. If this one was so original it wouldn't be reproduced in a typeface. See the US law below

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;

(b) Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing;

(c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information;

(d) Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship, such as, for example: Standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, schedules of sporting events, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.

(e) Typeface as typeface.

So, what more do you guys want? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't forget File:Guitar hero metallica alt.png Rocket000 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: things are running through my mind but not clicking rather well... Starting off, the description states, "Guitar Hero's logo using the typeface font Nightmare Hero".

1. the Guitar Hero logo is published in 2005, 3 years before the font appears on DaFont.[30]
2. fact: the author of the logo states "Inspirée de la police du jeu Guitar Hero. Tout droits reservés aux auteurs respectifs." or Google Translate: "Inspired by the police of the game Guitar Hero. All rights reserved to respective authors." Ignoring any validity to his belief of copyrights, the author does admit his created typeface is based on the game's logo.
3. American Heritage Dictionary defines "typeface" as "The size or style of the letter or character on a block of type." and "The full range of type of the same design." So the US law of "Typeface as typeface" would mean "A full range of letters or characters of the same style of design."

Was the stylised logo a typeface? Someone other than the developer copied the stylings and rendered them to other letters of the alphabet (a derivative work), creating this Nightmare Hero font after the game has been published. Can anyone confirm if the developers actually made a typeface from their stylised letterings? This logo might be copyrightable or not, but the current description (implying that the game logo was created from a typeface released after the game, and not the other way around) just rubs me the wrong way... Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" implies that copyright protection does not extend to stylings that are simple variations of pre-existing styles; so what base font does this Guitar Hero styling come from (and no, as already stated above Nightmare Hero is derivative of the logo, not the other way around)? I do not believe I have seen a font very similar to the styling for the Guitar Hero logo, but I would like to be proven wrong. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was in a font or not -- typefaces are not protectable. That includes hand-drawn letters. There needs to be some pictorial or graphic component to an image not related to the shape of the letters. If this is essentially the same as the original logo, then that was not copyrightable either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have tough time with these myself (and thus not voting), I can agree that it doesn't matter if it was made into a font or not. The only concern I have here is styling applied to it. Personally, I wouldn't think twice about reusing this. The trademark protection would be my only concern, but then again, I think even the Google logo is simply enough yet that has been deleted repeatedly. Rocket000 (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree on the Google logo... the only argument is the precise bitmap of the 3Dish logo may have an extremely thin copyright on the exact bitmap (maybe the gradients were hand-tuned). If someone else recreates the 3D stuff themselves, that should be fine. I'm guessing that was deleted because it is such a high-profile logo, and people want to be really sure on that one in particular. The non-3D ones are definitely fine. As for the styling... going by the U.S. copyright guidelines, there needs to be creative expression to be copyrightable; the "aesthetic attractiveness" doesn't really matter. A child's scribble looks like nothing, but it is still expression. The flip side is that something which just "looks cool" -- some attractive combination of colors, or a novel (but still simple) combination of shapes -- still isn't "expression". Sort of how short slogans, while novel and maybe a play on words, are still not copyrightable. From the guidelines: In determining the registrability of a print, the copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. That is basically what this logo is to me -- typographic ornamentation with some aesthetic coloring. There is no pictorial element not related to the shape (or the ornamentation) of the letters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, normally I would say something like that specific 3D look (vs. plain solid color like this) can make it cross that threshold, but nowadays it's hard to argue that there's anything original in simple gradient effects like that. But I think what really makes the different in people's opinion is the trademark. If it was some random word a user made, I doubt we would feel that way about it. We also tend to mixed up creativity and originality. Creativity is not what attracts copyright. You can be creative in practically everything you do. There's tons of creative but unoriginal works. I think the way the letters are arranged here (e.g. how the G, H, and u fit together) fall under this category. So in my opinion neither the typeface, style, or arrangement is original... but you can break down any copyrighted work into uncopyrightable elements so I'm again back where I started. Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

About the Google logo personally I think this was too much. The font is simple and the coloring too. And coloring is not copyrightable and ornamentation either. I think some users are going way too "harsh" over trademarks. And this is not good. Of course we must be careful for not finfring someone ricghts, but the way it is, is not good for the project. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult area. We just need to keep working together and figure it out. None of us can really be sure about these things (even the courts aren't). Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. But if we were less apprehensive about such things, it would be easier to braisntorm, look and find more interesting and significant things about theses cases. Anyway, Nightmare Hero and Circus Ornate are a little similar. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the one delete vote, I don't think we're being apprehensive about this. I know, in general, we can be, but this DR seems to be going the right way. Anyway, check out Ravenwood Two Condensed and Ironhorse (found with WhatTheFont). Rocket000 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep, I think. The existence of the "Nightmare Hero" font is a red herring: one can't force a copyrighted work into the public domain just by cutting it into pieces and using those pieces in a font. But, as far as I understand U.S. copyright law (and keep in mind that IANAL, just going on second-hand information here), letters that are "just letters", however unusually drawn, just can't be copyrighted, period. The situation may be different for things like dingbats or elaborate ornamental typefaces or inhabited initials (although again, IANAL), but the ornamentation on the letters in this logo is nowhere near enough to make them anything other than plain functional Latin letters, so I would say this is {{PD-textlogo}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sony_Computer_Entertainment_logo.png

I feel that the combination text and logo meet the originality threshold. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you saw this. But a logo an be considered with both of them.

U.S law says

§ 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;

(b) Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing;

(c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information;

(d) Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship, such as, for example: Standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, schedules of sporting events, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.

(e) Typeface as typeface.

[24 FR 4956, June 18, 1959, as amended at 38 FR 3045, Feb. 1, 1973; 57 FR 6202, Feb. 21, 1992]

And many other countries laws say the same. If you want I can look forward. I have the Brazilian law too easy here and is almost the same. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The "combination" is not copyrightable, nor are the words. It is based on the symbol and symbol alone. I find myself leaning towards deletion on that though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Per above. The orange/yellow design is too original for PD-textlogo. Cflm001 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As Mizunoryu said, colloring are not subject of copyright. And the shape and letters are simple. So  Keep Quintinense (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SNK_NeoGeo_Pocket_logo.png

Not simple enough geometry for PD, ergo copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete. Wikimedia claims that File:Commons-logo.svg is copyrightable, and we should apply the same standard to works from other sources. I am aware that "other stuff exists" is typically a fantastically poor argument, but the Commons logo is not just some overlooked corner at the periphery of the wikisphere; it's copyrighted, non-free status has been a matter of great debate. Anyone claiming that File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png is not copyrightable would need to explain how it differs from File:Commons-logo.svg in terms of original authorship or, failing that, effect change in the tagging of the Commons logo. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Commons accepts simple logos. You are going of what you think that should not be allowed here. The image contais just a letter and 4 shapes with shadows. Yes! The same way US flag is copyrighted but has it's Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that mattbuck is aware that Commons accepts simple logos. The problem is that this most likely does not quality as a simple logo. You still haven't addressed how File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png differs in copyrightability from File:Commons-logo.svg. Oh, and the flag of the United States is not copyrighted. It's in the public domain because it is a US Federal Government work, and because it's not an original work but rather a work based on older versions. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And because there is only one way to express it -- the dimensions are precisely defined in words. That would be a "merger doctrine" case ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for this ... hrm. At first blush I would have said copyrightable, but the main symbol is a stylized "P", so that is primarily not copyrightable. I don't think the rest qualifies either... "aesthetically pleasing" for sure, but just three dashes. I'll say  Keep on this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• LX, I would say that the part of the logo that would be closest to be copyrighted would be this "P" but as Carl already said above, it's just a stylized "P" (even this font nears it). That, with 3 dashes, plus 'shadow', makes me say to  Keep it. Yah ^msg 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Koei_logo.png

I think this passes the originality threshold and so is not PD -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why it passes? A simple text with two simple forms? I think you are going paranoic or pursuing me. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is a borderline case, and I'll reserve judgment on the issue of whether or not it contains original authorship, but please refrain from ad hominem arguments. Pathologizing fellow Commons contributors has no place in deletion discussions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Borderline just because for you images with some restrictions shouldn't be uploaded here. Say this to your friend! I'm not dumb. A person who delete some images saying No way in hell is that "simple geometric shapes, open a massive DR of my images with a lot way too simple, you want me to think what?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is borderline to me too. The letters and the dot over the "i" are not copyrightable, nor is the arrangement, so the decision is based on the cloud shape alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:GD-ROM_logo.png

I think this passes the originality threshold and so is not PD -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why it passes? Two simple leters with two simple forms? I think you are going paranoic or pursuing me. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep The two arcs are a simple shape to me, and not copyrightable. The arrangement and letters are definitely not copyrightable, so the two arcs are the only thing left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Not used, not very useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be used on the en:GD-ROM article (a local version is right now), or any of the 10+ similar articles in other languages. I don't see how it is "not very useful". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok,  Keep; those two arcs are just a circle. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Resident_evil_series_logo.png, File:Biohazard logo.png

I think this passes the originality threshold and so is not PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So much that you have the font available for download. Did you see it's description? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep User-made from a free font per the image description (and font source page, where they say all fonts are presumed free). Not sure if the font design would be copyrightable in the first place... but the lines on the letters may be. But I think that is moot anyways, given they are supposedly free fonts to start with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I created another logo for the eastern version using the same font. So I put it here too. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep. The original source of the font appears to be snakeyboy on DeviantArt. The author claims copyright, but makes no explicit indication of licensing (although implicitly indicates free use with attribution). However, if I've correctly understood the meaning of "typeface as typeface", that is irrelevant anyway and the file is good. --AJCham2097 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Resident_Evil_Code_Veronica_X_logo.png

I think this passes the originality threshold and so is not PD. It is not "simple" text. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why it passes? It consists only of simple fonts? I think you are going paranoic or pursuing me. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This would purely be based on the shading of the "X". Nothing else is copyrightable. Flimsy, but maybe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SNK_early_logo.png

I feel this passes the threshold of originality and so is not PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Some typefaces font, a square and some rectangles with a stroke in the end? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing which might qualify is the blue and green symbol on the left. The rest, definitely not, and the "combination" would not matter either. Hrm... they seem to be a stylized "S"... eh,  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FSM.png

Derivative work of [31] The following images are also suspect:

• File:FSM Logo white.svg
• File:FSM Logo.gif
• File:FSM Logo.svg

This spaghetti monster stuff must be cleared via OTRS soon or be deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These are all own work by uploaders who have freely licensed it. Nomination for deletion is unreasonable. 222.166.160.88 14:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete these images arguing derivative work is like noone could upload any cross or other kind de religious simbol by the same argument.--Osado (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Osado, the creator of this file, who I believe is saying that, "To argue that these images should be deleted because they are derivative, is like arguing that someone who is making an image of a cross or any other religious symbol is creating a derivative work which should be deleted."

As far as I know, no one has copyrighted the FSM fish symbol, or even claimed to have created the FSM fish symbol. As a religious symbol, I'm unsure if it can even be copyrighted. I would hence argue that, the image these files are supposedly derivative of, is a public domain religious symbol. Therefore the files themselves, being put in the public domain by their creators, are also public domain. LK (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some proof is still needed. Could you please ask the High Prophet of this religion to send an OTRS message to permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org with the public domain release? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that Bobby Henderson created the symbol and owns a copyright to it. As far as I know, he has neither claimed to have created the symbol, nor claimed copyright to it. Also, can a religious symbol be copyrighted? LK (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any work can be copyrighted if there is some artistic originality. Only very simple shapes can be {{PD-ineligible}}. Sv1xv (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

But that any image can be copyrighted is not the same that this is.--Osado (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this image was not originally created by Bobby Henderson, but rather by some of his Pastafarian adherents on Boing Boing who put it together in 2005. They released the image into the public domain. Here are links to the original and follow up posts on Boing Boing from the Internet archive: [32], [33].

I believe this conclusively shows that the image is public domain, and that this discussion should be closed. 203.168.215.89 03:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PiratesVsTemp.svg

Copyrighted image, see w:en:File:FSM_Pirates.png. Sv1xv (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is not the same image. It is completely different one, which I plotted myself in Excel. I just used the same numbers, which are not copyrighted. --RedAndr (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 18

[edit] Image:Pflanze Liuthalas 020709.JPG

There are already better pics --Liuthalas (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Now identified as Stellaria holostea. - MPF (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wachtelweizen Liuthalas 020709.JPG

There are already better pics --Liuthalas (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Imam_Hossein_University_Site.jpg

This file was originally uploaded to Commons on 25 January by Marx223543w (talk, contribs), who stated both the source and author as http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6704410 and made the claim that the image was simultaneously in the public domain because its term of copyright had supposedly expired in Iran and that the image was GFDL licensed (which contradicts the PD claim, as the GFDL can only apply to copyrighted works). The source image on Panoramio is marked "© All rights reserved by TT1854" and according to the image's metadata, it was created on 23 October 2007, meaning the PD claim was patently false.

During a series of edits in February, Hamed1245 (talk, contribs) then changed the source to "Google Earth", removed the {{PD-Iran}} and {{GFDL}} and replaced them with {{PD-self}}.

Two days ago, I tagged the image as missing evidence of the legitimate author and copyright holder of the image (which would appear to be TT1854 on Panoramio) having placed the work into the public domain (or under a GFDL license for that matter).

A few hours later, Facecite12656 (talk, contribs removed this problem tag and changed the "Author" field from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6704410 to "Own".

A few hours later still, Martin H tagged the image as a copyright violation with reference to the Panoramio image's copyright statement.

Today, Facecite12656 once again removed the problem tag without explanation and changed the "Source" field from "Google Earth" to "Own file".

To summarize, it's a non-free image found online and claimed by three redlinked users (one of whom removes problem tags without explanation, contrary to clear instructions on those templates) to be a free image, with no evidence to support the claim. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Per nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Linenzugbeeinflussung_old_display.jpg

The permissions does not seem to be valid. The permissioner neither states to be the author of the picture nor does he choose a license. Instead, the license was obviously chosen by the uploader who states not to be the author. Yellowcard (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FS_VSB-TUO_znak.jpg

This is not PD-textlogo. Ragimiri (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Papandreou_grave.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Greece, but I'm not sure if this qualifies as sufficiently original to merit copyright anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep This grave is very conventional, the portrait is de minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 19

[edit] File:Myron Cope WTAE.jpg

Image is not free. It was taken from Cope's 2008 Obit in the Post Gazette. Image is clearly credited to "Tom Ondrey/Post-Gazette." Flickerwashed.-Blargh29 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems to me the image is uploaded at Wikicommons because this image was originally posted to Flickr by Hryckowian at http://flickr.com/photos/87373143@N00/2296744380.

At commons it is also reviewed on 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) by the FlickreviewR robot and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.

I guess the original photographer got the image published in the Post Gazette, and afterwards decided to release it on Flickr under cc-by-2.0, which if I am not mistaken, is compatable here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It is not likely that the actual photographer, a professional photographer named Tom Ondrey, actually released this image into cc-by-2.0. First, the flicker user is Hryck is not Tom Ondrey. Second, the newspaper image and the flicker image are exactly the same. So, it is very likely that a guy uploaded a picture of Myron Cope that he found on the internet and gave it a bogus license, which is what I meant when I said "FLickerwashed." Look at the image description, which quote a significant portion of the obituary with that image! Third, even if Tom Ondrey did release it, he would not have the authority to do so, as he has apparently already sold it to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. --Blargh29 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Ok better be on the save side here, I guess. That Hryck is definetly a talented photographer, and he is from Pittsburg all right. It could be this image is one of his older works. But I don't know about your second and third argument. Thanks for explaining. I didn't know the term "FLickerwashed" yet. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Campulungtower.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Romania - No FOP in Romania - How old's the church? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Following IRC disscussion, church may be old enough to be PD design? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete unless we find the church is older than whatever PD age is in Romania. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep looks old enough --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep I would not worry about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Obregon_as_President_01.jpg

Per COM:L#Mexico copyright in Mexico lasts 100 years p.m.a., so this image is fundamentally unsourced and/or without permission. Martin H. (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's a picture of his inauguration in 1920 published by an American newspaper, the Nevada Observer. In the U.S., any image published before 1923 is in the public domain. How can Mexico's copyright law control the status of an image published in the U.S.? The image is neither "fundamentally unsourced" - the link is given - nor is it "without permission" - no permission being necessary because it is in the public domain. Adam sk (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is from the website of the Nevada Observer, but it neither says that it was published by them nor that it was not also published in Mexico the same time. Also the website, a simple collection for Hispanic Heritage, gives a source that indicates that they got the image from elsewhere to publish it on their website: Archivo Plutarco Elías Calles. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about: "the website, a simple collection for Hispanic Heritage, gives a source that indicates that they got the image from elsewhere to publish it on their website: Archivo Plutarco Elías Calles."??? Maybe you have it confused with the second image on the page. That website gives a source for every picture EXCEPT the one you're talking about, because it's their own image. Adam sk (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so, I still think the firs source is for the first and the second image. Can you proof your claim? The burdon of proof is with the uploader, so you must provide a source where this image was first published and that it was not published in Mexico befor or at the same time. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a "firs source"? I don't understand what a "burdon" is. By "proof" my claim, does that mean I need to provide fingerproofs to prove the publication? And I don't know what it means to be "published in Mexico befor...the same time". This entire entry was gibberish. I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Adam sk (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Easier: The image is painting and it comes from the Archivo Plutarco Elías Calles. Most likely it is an official painting, most likely created by an mexican painter. Copyright in Mexico lasts 100 years after the author, the painter, died. The image was not created by the Nevada Observer and it was most likely not published by the Nevada Observer because a source, year and number of issue is missing. The image is used on their website, but that not makes it published prior 1923 by them and that not removes the authorship of an mexican painter. The Burdon of proof: Provide a source that the image is public domain in the US (source) and that the country of origin of the painting are the US and not Mexico. --Martin H. (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're just wildly jumping to conclusions. But even if it is an official portrait, that's from a government source, which would mean that it's in the public domain in Mexico. So I think we can both agree the image should stay. Adam sk (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not PD, see again COM:L#Mexico. --Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

COM:L#Mexico is only a summary of a summary. If you'll go ahead and consult User:Drini/Mexican copyright law, which COM:L#Mexico references, I think you'll see that under #87, it's pretty clear that when you're dealing with a portrait, the rights only last 50 years after the death of the person in the portrait. Obregón died in 1928, so the work became PD in 1978. Adam sk (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Juulchin and Category:Juulchin

Page and category serve only as advertisement for a travel business. All images are already appropriately categorized by topic elsewhere. Nobody will serach for them under the name of that business. --Latebird (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I see no problem with en:Juulchin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with en:Juulchin either, which is why I didn't nominate for deletion. However, the gallery page and category of the same name on Commons serve no useful purpose. The images listed there do not show the Juulchin company or anything that would be specific to it. The yurts in the tourist camp shown are identical to those used by any other tourist company (or in fact any nomadic family) in Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment - the creator has now created a duplicate gallery page named Juulchin Bayalag (lit. = tourist richness). This might actually be a useful name for a subcategory of Category:Mongolian yurts, because it names a specific place where those yurts are located. But it also shows by contrast that the unspecific name "Juulchin" for both category and gallery is less than useful (besides now being redundant).

Note that "Juulchin" is simply the Mongolian word for "tourist". If we had any pictures about the company itself (staff, vehicle fleet, corporate offices, etc.), then an appropriate category to host those would rather be titled after the full company name. I've just renamed the article on enwiki to en:Juulchin Foreign Tourism Corporation, because the single word wasn't an appropriate title there either.. --Latebird (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:M48_attack.PNG

modificated image, probably cropped from somewhere, not usable in educational scope, not used Avron (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bad modification, but you can ask the uploader if he can upload a better version.--D.W. (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I asked the author for a better version.--Avron (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fadu_Day.jpg

Tineye gives 2 matches - Possible copyvio? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn. In the absence of any firm evidence, Assuming Good faith and possible reuse of Commons image, 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete From this university page which gives a permission to use and distribute, requiring attribution. Image is not in use anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bob_Parsons.jpg

Possibly a publicty shot, Tineye doesn't reveal anything though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Uploaded by en:User:ParsonsRep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Borgslaegtens_historie_stor.jpg

Source listed says site - "© Copyright Nordatlantens Brygge 2009" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Still from a 1920 film - PD-US and {{PD-Denmark50}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yizi.gif

Despite the CC-BY-SA/self made claim, this looks like an archive photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete - self made seems doubtful at best. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete - Everything else by this user has also been deleted. Rjanag (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep. According to the information provided, the photo was taken no later than 1920s. So it is a Template:PD-China file. --MtBell (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep with {{PD-China}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Anchors_Aweigh.ogg

Claimed PD - But no sourcing or authorship information apparently supplied to confirm this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• This does seem a crisper version than that available on the Navy website at http://www.navyband.navy.mil/sounds.shtml. It could have been ripped directly from their CD, however, and this seems likely. -Nard the Bard 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Imac17pouces.png

Derivative work of a copyrighted design. smial (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I suppose this was nominated because of the orange juicer next to the computer?? Oh my... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a photo of a photo of a lemon squeezer that had been deleted for the same reason. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't read French, so I must ask — what is the point of this image: to show the hardware or the software on the screen? If it's to show the software, delete, since the software design is copyrighted. If it's to show the hardware, rephotograph with a blank screen, since there's no problem with a photograph of the computer, but there's still too much screen visible. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The text names the computer and the lemon squeezer by Starck --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep utilitarian objects not artworks. --Simonxag (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)