Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] July 12

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

[edit] Images by Basitraja

User:Basitraja (contribution has uploaded multiple non educational images of persons. I request the deletion of all his uploads except the ones that are of educational value.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Two images of Category:Gulyana kept, they might have educational value. Mormegil (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:LEGO_Transporter.JPG

FOP dubious: not from public area (house or something) [[ Forrester ]] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think that COM:FOP has anything to do with this image since its not a permanent display.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not know more than this, might look up in a comment on the law [[ Forrester ]] 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - It's obviously in a public place, but not a permanent installation. Forrester's link says that application of FOP for vehicles is not entirely clear, but legal opinions tend to accept it. Current Commons practise is to keep such images, if they show the vehicle as a complete vehicle, and not just a cropped out paintwork detail. --Latebird (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

based on Forresters argument and like Latebird Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:LEGO_Transporter.JPG

I don't understand why this was kept. FOP doesn't apply, and the artwork is far from accessory. If the point is to illustrate this type of truck, it's surely not that hard to find one without copyrighted graphics. –Tryphon☂ 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think the subject of the picture is the artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. DW, FOP does not apply. --Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Sin_título-1.jpg

Unnecesary image 81.38.86.121 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No reason for deletion! However definitely the wrong licence!! --D-Kuru (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is the wrong license. GFDL would work if it were properly credited (like, to MediaWiki and/or Wikimedia Commons). About it being unnecessary, COM:SCOPE considers it educational if it's being used in a Wikimedia project, which it is at Spanish Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Keep and change license to GFDL. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Kept. MBisanz talk 08:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sin_título-1.jpg

I'm unable to see any image 88.12.252.237 11:39, 12 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)

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

[edit] NPG images protected by the URAA

These images uploaded from the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), London's website, according to the available date information, are or may be protected in the United States under the URAA. Although the URAA has been contested, in light of the existing legal battle with the NPG, I believe it is unwise to fight a battle on two fronts, and/or to give them any reason to pursue action in the United States. For the protection of all involved I'm (once again) suggesting their deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Dcoetzee. I don't think the URAA in its entirety has been contested -- the copyright restorations are required by Berne. I think the ruling was that the law went beyond Berne's requirements, and that the liability of people already using such works (the "reliance parties") should be reduced, but not that the entire URAA restorations be thrown out. Subsequent uses likely aren't helped by the Golan ruling -- they would be straight-up copyright infringements. Anyways, since these are against policy, and also because of legitimate request by uploader, I think they should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. In view of the current developments surrounding the NPG, I take the liberty to close this already as per Carl. Lupo 15:14, 12 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)

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

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

[edit] File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG

Offers no intellectual value. Crude image. 69.86.72.74 11:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Come on... It is in use... --MGA73 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep In use, so useful. Sex relate images should not be assumed to be of no value. --Simonxag (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG

It' PORN! 189.49.119.63 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept (non-admin closure): Was discussed above already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:25, 18 August 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)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg 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)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/07/12"