Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 July 8 1.1 Self-created images by Isaberu (talk · contributions) 1.2 File:Spud_talking_Fred_through.jpg 1.3 File:WhistlingSwanSign.jpg 1.4 File:Kresba tužkou The Wraith.jpg 1.5 File:Map-of-liguria-map-en-wiki.gif 1.6 File:Seychelles.png 1.7 File:600px_Giallo_e_Nero_con_pallone_e_stemma_di_Arhem.png 1.8 File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg 1.9 File:Josef-mengele.jpg

[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 [1] 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)