Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] August

[edit] August 1

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

[edit] File:Igor_Belanov.jpg

Looks like not own work. Probably it is scanned image. Anatoliy (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The signature is making me think this is from some kind of "official" source, which means OTRS permission would be required. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
However, this photo is not used in the news or on other sites, but only on Wikimedia projects — NickK (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I don't see any reasons not to believe that Yuriy Usatyuk (Юрий Усатюк) is the author. He is a sport journalist from Odesa, the native city of Belanov. Usatyuk has also written a book about FC Dniester Ovidiopol, Belanov played for this team. Belanov also took at least one interview with Igor Belanov. So, as a sport journalist living in the same city he really could take a photo of this player in 2005 (it was 2005, so this photo could be taken not with digital camera, thus printed, signed by the player and later scanned — NickK (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    If he is author of the photo, he may have the photo without signature. He should upload it.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    Then try to contact him if you need another version of the photo. He is inactive since January, so it's unlikely he will reply soon — NickK (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, no permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 2

[edit] File:Iona_logo.png

No evidence is offered by the uploader that the author licensed it as GFDL/CC-SA. Instead there needs to be a little research that shows it is free, such as being published before 1923 {{PD-1923}}. No doubt someone with access to school archives will be able to show us documentation during the deletion discussion, if that is the case. InfantGorilla (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. If this is deleted here, it probably qualifies to be moved to English Wikipedia, tagged as a {{Non-free school logo}} and with {{Logo fur}}. --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


The school was founded in 1916 and that logo was used

[edit] August 3

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

[edit] File:BMTH.jpg

Images are not permitted to have watermarks. --Nickysavage (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept and tagged with {{watermark}}. Watermarks are undesirable but not a reason to delete an image. Sv1xv (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:BMTH.jpg

Images are not permitted to have watermarks. Rezter (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Watermark could easily be cropped, but OTRS permission would be needed, as this has clearly already been published elsewhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) (UTC)
  • Did you see the last request? Rocket000 (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. OTRS permission is needed.--Trixt (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 4

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

[edit] File:Zrno.jpg

(imagevio from http://zdravi.centrum.cz/jime-zdrave/2009/3/26/clanky/lupinky-k-snidani-jsou-opravdu-zdrave/) --Jvs (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://zdravi.centrum.cz/jime-zdrave/2009/3/26/clanky/lupinky-k-snidani-jsou-opravdu-zdrave/ contains this image with more less resolution. File:Zrno.jpg is hardly originated from this page, though it is an identic image. --ŠJů (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The page cannot be the source of the image, but it does predate the image's upload to the Commons and the picture looks like it was always there. The uploader needs to explain the status of the image. --Simonxag (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, per Simonxag. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:116271pv.jpg & File:116270pv.jpg

This deletion request is part of the HABS/Buffalo City Hall series : DR 1 - DR 2 - DR 3

caption page says that the pictures are a "Courtesy of John W. Cowper Co., Inc.", so it was not made by a federal employee. Teofilo (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but change to {{Attribution}}. The documentation states the John W. Cowper company requires printed credit for photography published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Further information... the HABS photo submission guidelines state pretty explicitly:
Photographs taken for and included in the collections of HABS/HAER are in the public domain and are copyright free, except in the very rare instances where restrictions are imposed upon their use and distribution.
No photograph, negative, print or caption will be accepted for the HABS/HAER collection that bears a copyright statement or symbol. There will be no presumption of copyright. No one has the authority to waive this policy.
Every user is asked to credit the photographer and either HABS or HAER. Users of HABS and HAER records from the collection in the Library of Congress pay only the cost of reproduction. No user fees are charged.
Thus, there is a very strong assumption of public domain for photos from this collection, unless there is an explicit restriction mentioned. The only one here is that it must be attributed, so again we should switch to that tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think {{Attribution}} applies here. I plagiarize your words in Commons:Deletion requests/Images from NPS nomination forms : The [HABS] has permission to publish the included photos by themselves, but there does not appear to be any indication that anyone else has the same permission. Teofilo (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that does not apply here whatsoever. The HABS form makes plain that submissions are to be placed in the public domain; it couldn't be much more clear that *everyone* must have full rights for HABS/HAER submissions. So, either PD-author or Attribution for these. Materials for HABS are meant for public consumption; it is utterly unrelated to the (private) application form used in that other DR. It seems rather ridiculous to even try to correlate them, honestly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The HABS photo submission guidelines was released in June 2001. Its contents might have legal consequences for pictures bought by the National Park Service after that date, especially in cases when it is provided as an attached document in a purchase contract. But I don't see how it could have consequences for pictures bought or received as free gifts, or copied without permission as "fair use" by the National Park Service before that date. Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
None of the photos were copied without permission. I don't think they were bought either. They were all donated/supplied (knowingly) to be part of the HABS program. Very few (as they say) of the earlier submissions had any restrictions on them, and no such restrictions are mentioned in the documentation for these. Being that these were slightly earlier submissions is why I suggested Attribution rather than PD-author (which would definitely be true of current-day submissions). That is the only restriction mentioned in the documentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:116271pv.jpg & File:116270pv.jpg

This deletion request is part of the HABS/Buffalo City Hall series : DR 1 - DR 2 - DR 3

caption page says that the pictures are a "Courtesy of John W. Cowper Co., Inc.", so it was not made by a federal employee. Teofilo (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but change to {{Attribution}}. The documentation states the John W. Cowper company requires printed credit for photography published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Further information... the HABS photo submission guidelines state pretty explicitly:
Photographs taken for and included in the collections of HABS/HAER are in the public domain and are copyright free, except in the very rare instances where restrictions are imposed upon their use and distribution.
No photograph, negative, print or caption will be accepted for the HABS/HAER collection that bears a copyright statement or symbol. There will be no presumption of copyright. No one has the authority to waive this policy.
Every user is asked to credit the photographer and either HABS or HAER. Users of HABS and HAER records from the collection in the Library of Congress pay only the cost of reproduction. No user fees are charged.
Thus, there is a very strong assumption of public domain for photos from this collection, unless there is an explicit restriction mentioned. The only one here is that it must be attributed, so again we should switch to that tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think {{Attribution}} applies here. I plagiarize your words in Commons:Deletion requests/Images from NPS nomination forms : The [HABS] has permission to publish the included photos by themselves, but there does not appear to be any indication that anyone else has the same permission. Teofilo (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that does not apply here whatsoever. The HABS form makes plain that submissions are to be placed in the public domain; it couldn't be much more clear that *everyone* must have full rights for HABS/HAER submissions. So, either PD-author or Attribution for these. Materials for HABS are meant for public consumption; it is utterly unrelated to the (private) application form used in that other DR. It seems rather ridiculous to even try to correlate them, honestly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The HABS photo submission guidelines was released in June 2001. Its contents might have legal consequences for pictures bought by the National Park Service after that date, especially in cases when it is provided as an attached document in a purchase contract. But I don't see how it could have consequences for pictures bought or received as free gifts, or copied without permission as "fair use" by the National Park Service before that date. Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
None of the photos were copied without permission. I don't think they were bought either. They were all donated/supplied (knowingly) to be part of the HABS program. Very few (as they say) of the earlier submissions had any restrictions on them, and no such restrictions are mentioned in the documentation for these. Being that these were slightly earlier submissions is why I suggested Attribution rather than PD-author (which would definitely be true of current-day submissions). That is the only restriction mentioned in the documentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Isaac.Israels.jpg

There is an email from an art expert employed by Christie's (ticket number 2009080410028763 for those with an OTRS account) which states that this work is not by Isaac Israels. As there is no explicit sourcing and there is a very dubious claim of GFDL, I thought it best to start a deletion request. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the user who uploaded it made the reproduction himself and therefore regards it as "own work", forgetting that reproductions of this kind are in fact PD. About the image itself: assuming it's a forgery I wonder if copyright law applies here. It would be a little strange if the real author would come forward and claim this work as being his own, since forgery is a criminal offense. Therefore I say:
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as an example of forgery - Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I received a second email from the expert, who said that the owners of this particular painting are currently trying to sell it. However, they are yet to reply with any details about who did create this work. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The only thing that is certain is that we do not know who created the artwork, when, or under what circumstances. Forgery is a possibility, as is a hoax (without criminal intent), as is another artist with the same name. --Simonxag (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't agree with that. When you make a painting and sign it Isaac Israëls (or Rembrandt or Vincent van Gogh for that matter) in this era it is by definition a forgery. So it's either a genuine Israëls or a forgery. Wikipedia is there to inform people and making people aware of the fact there are forgeries out there is a good thing, which, I must say, I haven't seen much of so far. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm personally with Simon here- we don't know anything about this picture for certain. It's not a notable forgery, and if we require a self-made example of a forgery, we can get someone else to create it- that way, we at least know exactly what is going on. We really don't know anything about this picture, and so I personally consider it best to delete it. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is an interesting case. If the artist is really unknown, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} might apply. But I also wonder if a forgery can get enough originality to have its own copyright. The objective is that it looks like as much as possible like the original painting, isn't? Yann (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete we have no useful provenance for either the image or the painting it's an image of. Without knowing the author or date we cannot ascribe a copyright status to it - Peripitus (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, forgery (no author), out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:116273pv.jpg

This deletion request is part of the HABS/Buffalo City Hall series : DR 1 - DR 2 - DR 3

I believe this picture belongs to the sculptors Graf and Mc Ilveen, whose names are written on the picture itself and mentioned on page 6 of the data pages. I have no reason to believe that they, or the photographer who took the picture for them, are federal employees. Teofilo (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:116271pv.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:ChantierB2.jpg

Claimed as own work, but also attributed to an archive. Mediocre scan of probably professional photo from the 1960s. Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Photokerbernier.jpg

Claimed as own work; the unusual corners suggest professional photo. From c. the 1980s. Other images by same uploader have been problematic. Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name of this cycist. I have upload unter the correct name File:Marcel Fischer.jpg --Radsportler (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:SmeducciCourt_1993.jpg

I doubt that this is the uploader's own work. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello J. I assure you that I have personally scanned that old photo from a booklet of my own. Tifialf (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) A. Tifi

Then, unless the booklet/photo is in the public domain, it would be a derivative work. Do you have any reason to believe that the booklet/photo is in the public domain or released under a free license? J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation (DW). Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 5

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

[edit] File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.jpg

no freedom of panorama in France Ikiwaner (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Utilitarian object. No separately distinguishable artistic function. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A bridge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.jpg

copyright protected subject is main subject here and not an incidental element. See Commons:De minimis. The discussion of the previous request for deletion did not address the fact there is no freedom of panorama in France and that the copyrighted subject is the main one in the image. Please see Commons:De minimis#An example under Civil Law. Alternatively, please change Commons policy and guidelines to allow these images (I would support that change, but I doubt it will happen). -84user (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is possible I do not understand the French copyright interpretation with respect to functional bridges (that have little artistic character) so I am asking at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#France and Belgium for clarification and if I am told these bridges are Ok I will withdraw these deletion nominations. 84user (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This is a functional bridge of standard modern design. I don't see much originality here. If the bridge was unique architecturally, then it may be copyrighted. We have many of these bridges in the US or Canada like this one and few claim they are copyright protected. But...of course I may be wrong since FOP is such an intractable problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, sure it is utilitarian, but then again, all buildings are. And yet the law seems to give protection to such architectural work. Also note that Eiffage (the company who built the viaduct) is claiming copyright over the viaduct (see this document, in French) and actively protecting it. –Tryphon☂ 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK then. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The claim sounds absurd - should everything in Category:20th century bridges in Paris be deleted then? Back to the days when taking a photo of a bridge could get you arrested for spying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless they are out of copyright or we have permission from the copyright holder. --Simonxag (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. NW (Talk) 02:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] All Buffalo City Hall photos by Cohen and Daniels

This deletion request is part of the HABS/Buffalo City Hall series : DR 1 - DR 2 - DR 3

According to data pages, p.13, Cohen and Daniels are employees of the City of Buffalo. The City of Buffalo is not a federal administration, so their pictures are not federal employees' work, so they are not in the Public Domain. Teofilo (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep See Commons:Deletion requests/File:116271pv.jpg. Photograph submissions to HABS/HAER must be placed in the public domain (with very few exceptions); it is very clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As of 2001 and if the directives of Mr Boucher are being followed in the lower storeys of his administration but these pictures are older. Teofilo (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
HABS has always been about public dissemination. If there are restrictions you think are explicitly in the documentation, then use Attribution instead of PD-author (agreed that they are not PD-USGov). I only see that the Cowher firm photos require Attribution, but it could be read that way for Cohen and Daniels too (at the bottom of the page you link above). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. HABS was created in a time when there was no Freedom of Information Act, and "Creation of the program was motivated primarily by the perceived need to mitigate the negative effects upon our history and culture of rapidly vanishing architectural resources" 1, "to mitigate the adverse effects of federal actions such as demolition or substantial alteration" 2. If the pictures had been collected with the prospect of publishing them, you would not find so many pictures with text written on them like File:116273pv.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
An even more powerful argument : if the HABS pictures had been intended for publication... they would have been published. Teofilo (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? HABS sets out to do a profile of a building, and owners/builders/etc. come up with a few historical photographs and donate them. If someone had written a caption on them, so what? The aims of HABS are largely the same as they always were -- it was meant to be a historical archive and record, available to the public. The Library of Congress has *always* been a partner for that reason. I would assume the guidelines codified existing practice, though I'm sure there are a few photos important enough to accept with copyright restrictions, and quite possibly the earlier submissions weren't quite as carefully screened. That said, the documentation needs to have explicit restrictions stated if there are really any issues, and there are none here. Cohen and Daniels were taking the photographs specifically for HABS in the first place. They were City of Buffalo employees, and the city was cooperating with the NPS to get the needed materials -- as is explicitly stated on your original link. Freedom of Information Act!? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sending pictures and data pages to a public library does not constitute publication. And even if it did, in 1981 {{PD-US-no-notice}} did not apply anymore, so that all rights would have been reserved even in the absence of any written restriction. "The city was cooperating with the NPS" : yes, so that the NPS is enjoying a "NPS-only license". They were cooperating only with the NPS, not with Wikimedia or Wikimedia's users. Teofilo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes it probably would count as publication. And copyright notices were required until March 1, 1989. The materials were intended for a much wider license than the NPS; there is no "NPS-only" assumption here whatsoever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No opinion on the larger request, but sending material to a public library doesn't count as publication, and estates of authors who have deposited material at public libraries have taken great care to make sure only what they want is considered published, the rest often only being available by permission of the estate for a certain period of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but this isn't exactly a normal public library -- these were photographs submitted to be part of the archive for public use and research, part of a specific federal government program. Once material is available to the entire public (with no specific permission needed), that is essentially general publication to me. If there is material only available to specific people for a specific purpose, then yes that would be limited publication, but that is not the case here. There are a very few items which are restricted, and from what I've seen the HABS entries at loc.gov show placeholders for those few images. Well, sometimes they are still made available, though they are plainly marked as restricted -- one example is here, where the donator requires permission for use on a couple of 1860s works (I guess they were considered unpublished). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Demary.JPG

Es liegt keine Genehmigung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos vor. Hier wird aktiv das Recht am eigenen Bild der abgebildeten Person verletzt. Ergo ist es rechtswidrig dieses Bild hier zu veröffentlichen und daher muss das Bild gelöscht werden. Alles andere wäre Beihilfe. -80.245.147.81 12:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For most images there is no permission agreement by the person on the image. If you are a public person (like a politician) you usually don't need to be asked. The person on the image has an article on the german Wikipedia. However, If the person on the image does not want to be disüplayed on Commons he just has to contact an admin and the image can be removed.
I added {{personality rights}} to the image
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Das Bapperlschubsen ist ja nett gemeint, aber es entspricht nicht der Rechtslage. Es liegt nicht an Herrn Demary gegen die Veröffentlichung zu protestieren - es ist an UNS zu belegen, daß wir das Recht haben das Bild zu veröffentlichen. Und die Tatsache, daß eine Person einen Wikipediaartikel hat, bedeutet noch lange nicht, daß es sich um eine Person des öffentlichen Interesses handelt. Hier haben wir einen Hoschullehrer und Professor. Auf den trifft das 100% nicht zu. 80.245.147.81 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Du vergisst eines 80.245.147.81: Auf Commons die Rechtslage Floridas zählt und nicht die aus Deutschland oder Österreich (für diesen Fall hier)
--D-Kuru (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Demary gave me the permission to display the photo here on Wikipedia. I took the photo myself in his office in Kassel.--Boholboy (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Das ist ja nett gesagt, aber es sollte bitte per Mail bestätigt sein. 80.245.147.81 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Demary hat sein Einverständnis gestern an permissions gemailt.

We got permission via OTRS, see ticket:2009092610042258 Yellowcard (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of Oscar statuettes

It is quite incredible that nobody proposed these images for deletion yet. Some people seem more interested in imaginary copyrights. But this thing was created 1929 by en:Cedric Gibbons. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts is of course copyright-savvy, and according to http://www.oscars.org/legal/regulations.html "the Academy has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce, manufacture, copy, sell, display images of and publish said statuette in any size or medium, whether in three or two dimensions." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, these images are clearly non-free in the United States. Good catch. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Things are not as clear-cut. Some images should be retained:

--BomBom (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Germany does not apply, because these images were taken inside buildings; I do not know about Croatian FOP - please give a reference. Probably it does not matter if the trailer is in the public domain, the statuette in this frame would still be copyrighted. As for silhouettes without detail, compare with for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unaysaurus dinosaur-outline.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding File:Dunaway Oscar & LJ.jpg (7th above), it is not clear to me how there is a copyright infringement in that case. The OTRS should cover it, it seems. What is clear to me, unfortunately, is that the user who has submitted this list for deletion appears to be on a personal campaign against images in which the person holding Dunaway's Oscar appears (see e g here under "Problems continue") or which that person has taken and/or submitted to Commons with that OTRS (see Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives). Thus, it it looks to me like there is a personal agenda behind this deletion request, at least as pertains to the Dunaway Oscar image. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket did not come from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; it is irrelevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted all, some images have been cropped to remove the copyrighted parts. Oscar statuettes are clearly copyrighted and not DM in any of the images. As outlined on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unaysaurus dinosaur-outline.svg, outlines are also derivative works. German FOP does not apply and I don't think Croation FOP applies as this is nothing similar to streets, squares, parks. Should we get clarification that Croation FOP applies indoors, those can be undeleted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Poster_SS_Polizei.jpg

This is not a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment. Therefore {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply. Teofilo (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It is signed, but I cannot read it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep You have based your deletion request on only Part 1 of Section 5, Official Works, in the German copyright law. Part 2 of this section shows that it does apply to this poster--and to any other official work published for the general interest. Below is the text of the law. Scott --Rskellner (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
§ 5 Amtliche Werke
(1) Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.
(2) Das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind, mit der Einschränkung, daß die Bestimmungen über Änderungsverbot und Quellenangabe in § 62 Abs. 1 bis 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 und 2 entsprechend anzuwenden sind.
According to the top lines of Template talk:PD-GermanGov, part 2 of section 5 is incompatible with the GFDL and Wikimedia Commons' policies. Teofilo (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who began the PD-GermanGov template discussion, User:3247, is verifying that such official works are in the public domain, but he has reservations about placing certain kinds of official works on Wikimedia because of the restrictions that the works not be changed and that the ownership must be identified (Sections 62(1) and 62(3). This person's reservations seem unfounded, as uploading the documents do not alter them. Has this photo of the poster been altered that you know of? Regarding our other discussion, Teofilo, about the Friedrich Kellner diary page, which has led to your placing a deletion request on this poster file, the reservations expressed by User:3247 about Section 5 do not apply to my upload of the diary page at all: nothing has been altered on the photographs pasted onto the diary page, and we can amend the image file to include mention that these photos are under the aegis of the Bundesarchiv. So I continue to ask that you remove the deletion request for that diary page. Thank you, Scott --Rskellner (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, "images cannot be changed" is not acceptable at commons. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images in Category:Gundam

Many images in Gundam derivative works of copyrighted figures. Detailed information:

Button rgb 000 127 000.svg should/can be kept
Button rgb 255 000 000.svg should be deleted
Button rgb 255 191 000.svg need to be discussed

Done in the meantime... --GeorgHH • talk   22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Rathaus-bensberg-modell.jpg

There is no Freedom of Panorama inside buildings in Germany : COM:FOP#Germany Teofilo (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Betasigmaupsilon.jpg

Image purports to be a fraternity logo, presumably the copyright is owned by the fraternity. No evidence of permission. UserB (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless someone brings evidence that it was published without a copyright notice during the years defined on {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Teofilo (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)out of topic in the Philippines Teofilo (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, you are correct, but keep in mind that the fraternity (which I am not completely convinced exists because the website given at en:List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines is dead and googling doesn't reveal anything relevant) purports to be from the Philippines, so US the copyright law wouldn't be applicable. Also, I'm not an art critic, but the artwork looks more modern than something that would have been created in 1959 - they didn't necessarily create this logo when they were founded. --UserB (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't know these greek letter fraternities existed elsewhere than in the US. Sorry. Teofilo (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation (images must be free both in the source country and the US). Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:ALPHA_THETA_OMEGA_1968.jpg

Logo for a fraternity. Unlikely that the copyright is owned by a user. Also nominating File:ALPHA THETA OMEGA.BBG.jpg, which is the same image with a black background. On that one, the user says this is "my version" which would imply this one isn't and is a copyrighted image. UserB (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Alpasigmaomega1976.jpg

No evidence of permission. UserB (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brieftaubengruppe.jpg

The permission for the photo itself is valid. Anyways, the figure was, according to the otrs permission, produced between 1939 and 1945. Therefore we cannot assume the shown figure to be in the PD, although the firm has become insolvent. Yellowcard (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Work is anonymous and thus in the PD 70 years after the first publication. Please close this deletion request. Yellowcard (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to say it is anonymous until someone tells us if something is written, and if so, what is written on the bottom or on the back of the figure. Teofilo (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If anonymously published in 1940, it is copyrighted until january 1st 2011. If anonymously published in 1945, it is copyrighted until january 1st 2016. Teofilo (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It was proved that the first publication was in 1935 or earlier, because we got a scan from a catalog from 1935 offering this figure. The figure was made by a firm which does not exist any longer so I assumed it would be anonymous? Yellowcard (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karte_Gothia.jpg

It is possible that Merlet died less than 70 years ago so that the original work is still copyrighted in Germany and the USA. The artistic work added to that of Merlet might be expressive enough to allow copyright protection. This additional artistic work would be protected as an anonymous work, 70 years after publication, which seems to have started in 1999 ("gelaufen 1999": http://www.verlag-tms.de/Verlag_Thomas_Mayer-Steudte1.pdf ).

If Merlet is no longer alive, this work is a posthumous work, protected at least 25 years after publication in all EU countries (German copyright law §71 - en:Publication right. 1999 + 25 = January 1st 2025, if 1999 is the first publication date. I am not 100% sure of the meaning of "rec." in "rec. 1906", and of the meaning of "gelaufen 1999". Please feel free to tell so if you know another interpretation. Teofilo (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The uploader wrote the following on my talk page Teofilo (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) diff

Merlet was a Member of the Corps Gothia. He joined the Austrian fraternity in 1906. As far as I know, the postcard was created in the 1920's. Merlet died in 1939. The original postcard is in the posession of Corps Gothia.

Gehumi

Are you a member of Corps Gothia ? Teofilo (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The uploader wrote the following on my talk page Teofilo (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am a member.

A) Can you upload a version of the original (black and white, I suppose) work by Merlet, not the colorized one copyrighted by Verlag Thomas Mayer Steudte ?
B) Can you ask a manager of Corps Gothia to send an E-mail with a permission to the address mentioned on COM:OTRS , and a confirmation that the publication on Wikimedia Commons does not conflict the publication by Thomas Mayer Steudte ?
C) Can you write a few words about Merlet ? Is he a famous artist ? Teofilo (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "rec" means that Merlet joint the fraternity in 1906; "gelaufen" must be about the postcard, when it was sent by mail. This not very likely to be PD-old. (There was a painter Erwin Merlet in the same fraternity, a relative?) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have one question: the postcard portrayed by Verlag Thomas Mayer Steudte is an entirely different one than my upload. Is all work from Merlet copyrighted or just this single postcard? Gehumi

Copyright depends on the artist's death year. If this Merlet died young (before 1939), his work would be PD, but there is no proof of that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is proof that Merlet died in 1939. http://www.biographien.ac.at/oebl/oebl_M/Merlet_Alexander-Erwin_1886_1939.xml Gehumi

In Austria and in all European Union countries, unpublished works are protected 25 years from the time they start being published. See de:Editio princeps.

  • Is your upload is the first publication of the card or was it published before ?
  • Do you know the name of the other artist who completed Merlet's original "Entwurf" (draft/sketch) ?
  • Is the "Entwurf" black and white or is it already colorized ?

Teofilo (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 6

  • Add {{delete|REASON(mandatory)}} on the page
  • Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|08}} ~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08}}

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/07

[edit] August 8

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

[edit] File:M10_Wolverine_of_628th_TDs_in_Dreux.jpg

Picture taken from a book. Source website does not say if picture is taken by a US military on duty or for personal hobby or by a French civilian Teofilo (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep http://www.5ad.org/pics/norman34.html does not look like a French "Frenchmen with liberators" picture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
US president F.D. Roosevelt disliked the Free French. Would a US army signal corps photographer have dared to keep a picture with Free French insigna ? Is it not easier to imagine that the same person who wrote the insigna on the wall is the person who took the picture ? Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence for a US military image given. High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This closure was premature, see User talk:High Contrast#Very fast deletion. This request is reopened and will stay open for 7 days. Unless someone finds a source supporting the US military claim, it will be deleted. Multichill (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reopening this. Shimgray (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave this matter some thought when I first uploaded the image; as Teofilo spotted, it's not quite obvious what the license should be. It's not explicitly labeled with an author; none of the images in that set are, sadly. Some are "personal" photographs, of named people; some are more clearly "stock" photographs (this, for example, I recognise). My strong feeling is that, on the balance of probabilities, it was taken by a US soldier on active duty; the argument that only a Frenchman would be likely to use a Free French poster as a backdrop is a bit hard to take seriously! I do accept it's not possible to be absolutely sure, because there's no clear image captioning in the source; so be it.
However, I've dug around a bit more, and found something interesting. The image is a digitised copy taken from the book Paths of armor, published 1950. Per this chart, we see that a work published in 1950 with a copyright notice would need renewing; the renewal would be due in 1977 or 1978 per here. I've dug through the renewal records for 1977/1978, and failed to find anything. I'm not clear if this would directly impact the copyright status of the image - does it only count if published in its own right? - but the lack of a renewal notice certainly seems worth thinking about. Shimgray (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept, per Shimgray. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tullverket_logotyp.gif

no source for copyrighted free use grillo (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Not eligible for copyright. Sweden has a similar threshold of originality as Finland, and according to links in COM:LICENSING#Finland, coats of arms are free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Then why do we create our own coats of arms instead of using the "official" versions? /grillo (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Because some municipalities claim copyright, which may be correct for some none-traditional designs. If I had known about the Finnish copyright opinions, I would have brought it up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stockholm vapen bra.svg. Deleting that one was copyright paranoia I think. Anyway, COM:FOP#Sweden allows copying of permanently displayed designs, for example on the outside of City Halls or Customs offices. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept. I think what Kuiper is saying makes good sense here. #Finalnd makes it clear that the coats of arms are free, so the cited reason for deletion is not applicable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tullverket_logotyp.gif

The Finnish decision (which the last DR quoted) is based on a decision by the Finnish Copyright Council. Unless there is a similar Swedish decision I don't see how the Finish case can be applied. As for the current license an OTRS permission would be needed to support it. /Lokal_Profil 10:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant section of Commons:Licensing is "The textual representations of Finnish coat of arms of municipalities, regions and provinces are considered to be governmental decisions and therefore they are not protected by copyright. According to the opinions of the Finnish Copyright Council 1997:11 and 1998:5 also the graphical representation is thought (at least in these cases) not to meet the requirements for a original work of art and therefore is not protected by copyright. This is also thought to be true for the coat of arms of historical provinces and other historical coats of arms.". Considering that not only the municipalities but also the National Herald (Statsheraldiker) claims that these are copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As previously. The Finnish official opinion of the copyright council carries more weight than the claims of an expert in heraldry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
But the Finnish copyright councils opinion is completely irrelevant... in Sweden. Yes the situations are similar, but not the same. E.g. in Finland all photos taken by people active in the military are also free, not so in Sweden. Get a decision from the Swedsih Copyright Council and I'll happily go along with you, but until then there isn't ant strong evidence of the image being free./Lokal_Profil 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a Swedish copyright council does not exist. This official opinion of Finnish experts relevant because it is based on the same law paragraphs and general ideas about threshold of originality as in Sweden, as the Nordic countries coordinated their legislation in this area. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Although the paragraphs might be similar I still believe the interpretation would be different in Sweden. Similar examples is how all government photos are free in Finland due to Template:PD-FinlandGov this is not so in Sweden (and Denmark methinks) since the similar paragraph does not extend to images but just the documents and decisions. There is a similar situation for stamps where the Finnish ones are free but e.g. Swedish ones are not. I'll agree that the legal framework is very similar in the Nordic countries but how the framework is interpreted apparently seems to differ. Finland seems to be the country which interprets towards the most freedom, sadly there is nothing indicating that Sweden would do the same. /Lokal_Profil 14:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not true that Finnish copyright is more liberal - COM:FOP#Finland is more limited than in Sweden, but that does not matter for this case. Regulations for stamps or government works do not have anything to do with the concept of threshold of originality either. Such difference are based on differences in the text of the law. But when the law is the same, the official interpretation and application of Finnish law is highly relevant for other Nordic countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What I'm stressing with these is that they are all formulated in the same way "This file is in the public domain because it is a part of a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body of COUNTRY." The interpretations of the text by specialists/court cases/copyright councils etc. is then what's lead to the decision of whether or not images in such decisions & statements then also become PD. In Finland this is so, in Sweden it isn't, in Norway it depends on whether the image was originally created for said statement. So word wise they are all similar but interpretation wise they are not. Same thing should be assumed to apply for CoAs unless we have some form of evidence to the contrary. It falls back to the precautionary principle, if we don't know that it is free we shouldn't assume that it is. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As Pieter Kuiper says above: the laws themselves do differ regarding the examples given above. In Sweden certain types of works are explicitely eligible for copyright regardless of being part of a decision, while in Finland it depends on whether the work is regarded as part of the decision or as an independent work.
Regarding "government photos" I think the main difference is between the wikipedia communities. The Finnish have elected a liberal interpretation of "yttrande" (translated to "statement" in the template) while the Swedish have not. I have not heard of any court cases or similar that would back up either.
--LPfi (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ask Tullverket. Due to this article Tullverket has released their coat of arms under a free licence. /grillo (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that article only shows Kustbevakningens belief that Tullverket has released the image under a free license, probably due to the fact that their logo shows up on their Wikipedia page. Pieter arguments is for a PD license. If we're arguing about whether this logo was released under a free license then we need a copy of the permission sent to OTRS, as with all similar cases. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As in "ask them". /grillo (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Their opinion isn't really relevant to the discussion above. If the decision is that the Finish decision isn't enough then yes we would need to ask them/demand an OTRS entry of the permission. If the decision goes the other way though we have essentially decided that all Swedish coat of arms are PD in which case Tullverket's permission is not needed. Since the question about the validity of the Finish decisions for Sweden is much more relevant (and far reaching) it's important that we decide on that irrespectively of any permission issue. /Lokal_Profil 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Anna375

These images of User:Anna375 are most likely all copyvios and scanned from some company-history book. "own work" is very improbable for *all* of them, besides that they are from the 1920ies. They're used in the article de:Frisco (Eismarke), which is by the same user. He has been warned multiple times both here and on dewiki and asked for an explication, but didn't answer. Some of the images may go as logo on de, but not here on commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rorschach images are also old enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? They're older than 70 years, but that doesn't mean the creator is dead for more than 70 years. I thought that it was consensus to usually accept images of unknown authors when the images are older than about 100 years only. Do I miss something? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The work (an advertisement for jam) is not signed, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know about this special rule. Unfortunatelly however, Switzerland is not in the EU. Or does this even apply if the advertisement was also used i.e. in germany (for which, besides, there's currently no proof)? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not realize this was Swiss. But anyway, COM:L#Switzerland gives the same rule for anonymous works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That looks good then. So they should be relicensed to PD-Old? --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-anon-70}} would be more correct in this case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

<move left>Ok, I've re-licensed the two old advertisement pictures and revoke the deletion request for them. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 9

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

[edit] File:15._březen_1939_-_německá_okupace.jpg

Image was in In category Copyright violations no reason given I'm changing it in a DR Huib talk 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This picture has been taken by Czech photographer Josef Mucha, journalist of Czech Press Agency. He died in 1974 and this is too short time to mark it as "Public domain". See http://www.fotografnet.cz/index.php?lang=cz&cisid=32&katid=5&claid=183 or http://www.celemvzad.cz/clanek.php?cislo=12&kapitola=6 . Slimejs (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note - there is a pending OTRS ticket on this. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket has been confirmed. Please close this DR. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket has been sent by Fredy.00 who is known now for faking OTRS tickets. Please check this again. --Martin H. (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FJR1300P_Gooi-_&_Vechtstreek.jpg

I strongly doubt that there is really otrs permission, the site says that you can only use this picture for personal use and you should look for the press page for free images. There is no number in the ticket. I think the template is a fake Huib talk 10:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Huib, I can't really work with this system. It's hard to get a real copyrightfree picture trough. If you can help please do so. http://www.yamaha-motor.nl/pers/fjr1300P.jsp is a site from Yamaha stating in the "noot" in Dutch that it's copyrightfree. How much more proof do you want???

user:woudegeest

Nederlands: Er staat op de pagina niet bestemd voor publicatie wat inhoudt dat het alleen rechten vrij is voor eigen gebruik en niet voor publicaties, maar had je toestemming doorgeemailed naar OTRS?

(your not allowed for use other than personal use) this will mean the image isn't free enough for Wikimedia, but did you send permission to OTRS?}} Huib

English: On the page stands niet bestemd voor publicatie (your not allowed for use other than personal use) this will mean the image isn't free enough for Wikimedia, but did you send permission to OTRS?

Huib talk 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Nederlands: Er staat: "Noot, niet bestemd voor publicatie:" Daarmee doelend op het feit dat deze noot/informatie niet in het persbericht meegenomen hoeft te worden. In die informatie staat dat de foto's copyrightfree mogen worden gepubliceerd. Jouw aangehaalde tekst is dus alleen op toepassing op de noot.
English: On the page stands "Noot: niet bestemd voor publicatie:" this means "Note, not intended for publication:" Which means they do not want the note/information on copyright etc published in the article. So all they want to say do not publish this note for it's not part of the article. The note itselfs tells that the photos are copyrightfree.

user:woudegeest

[edit] File:ManresaCapuch36-int.jpg

First: How can a photo be "Public domain because the author (photographer) died >70 years ago" if the author is unknown and the photograph is of 1936?? Second: I cant find the image searching the source website including the main page http://www.guiamanresa.com/laseu/portada.htm. But I saw, that most photos are from w:es:Lluís Rubiralta i Garriga died 1980 according to Wikipedia. So this photos are assumably unfree and public domain at least in 2051. Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The same applies for File:ManresaCapuch36.jpg which have the author mentioned and is copyright violation per above reason. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In most coutries in the world 2009-1936=73 and 73>70, but if this picture was made by Rubiralta, it is copyrighted --> delete. If it was not, it might be free.
    Julo (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Your calculation is correct :) I challenged the status incorrect. To correct the expression of my thoughts: How can one say a photo is public domain for the reason 70y pma given in PD-old if the span of time between date of creation and the required date of death is so short and no information about the author was researched. --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 10

[edit] File:Mongolian_Maths_Paper.PNG

Scan of a math paper. Uploader admits that this is still under copyright. Uploader contests speedy deletion on grounds that "contents of the paper are not disclosed by this perspective image" which is clearly incorrect - it's a scan of the paper contents. TheGrappler (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TheGrappler, can you read the content of the essay? --虞海 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In this perspective image, you cannot read the content of the content, the only readable part is the title. It's not as clear as File:Dubbel2.jpg. --虞海 (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether we are viewing the image at different resolutions, but it looks completely legible to me (barring my knowledge of the Mongolian alphabet). At any rate, it remains the scan of a copyright work - low resolution is used to defend fair use claims but doesn't put this out of copyright? TheGrappler (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean you can read the title, or you can read the whole article? --虞海 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Get it, I didn't click the image so it shows me the 391px-Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG. --虞海 (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
391px. Done. --虞海 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image is in use in Wikipedias in 2 languages. However the copyright status seems unclear from description; if it cannot be shown to be either PD or free licensed for some reason, cannot be kept on Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Atlas - book.jpg: Part of this image is also readable, why it can be kept? --虞海 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely this image comes under fair use? It is not of the whole exam, cannot be mistaken for the exam, and there is no way it can possibly compete with the exam. 94.192.233.202 01:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Wikimedia Commons by policy does not accept media under fair-use. We only accept media that are either in the Public Domain, or licensed with a free license. Since this is a derived work based on copyrighted material by surag.net, the uploader is not authorised to publish it with a free license. It therefore fails our requirements for inclusion, and whether anyone can read it simply doesn't matter. (And just for the sake of completeness, it isn't a "perspective image" either, it's a scaled down copy directly fom the digital original.) --Latebird (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, then did the writer of File:Atlas - book.jpg authorise nl:User:Michiel1972 to photograph and redistribute it? --虞海 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That is irrelevant, en:WP:OTHERSTUFF will help you understand why. But since you now submitted it for deletion, we'll soon know the answer anyway --Latebird (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. en:WP:OTHERSTUFF is an English Wikipedia Essay, not a Wikimedia Commons Policy.
  2. It's definitely unfair to delete one but keep another.
  3. I need to know why File:Atlas - book.jpg can be kept and check if it can be used in this case. If it can't be used in this case, I need to make this image avalable to that case. --虞海 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF tells you that your argument is invalid from a purely logical point of view. It doesn't have to be a formal policy to do that. --Latebird (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It "tells" me, but no Wikimedia rules banned me. Everyone can "tell". e.g. I can also write an essay saying OtherStuff is logical, right and implementable because ESSAYs do not represent consensus (it hasn't been discussed). --虞海 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Museum_Wien_1900.jpg

IMHO is this postcard originally not an US work. So the copyright tag should be changed. ALE! ¿…? 09:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Listed on LOC site as created by the Detroit Publishing Co, so US work (and free).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Gryffindor (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote, please explain your reasoning. --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FSengine.PNG

A Screenshot of a non-free program. Apalsola t • c 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. Comment. Widgets are minimalist and don't meet imho w:threshold of originality. --Dereckson (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Some uploads by Sara metal666

I believe that all these files are copyright violations. Own work claimed but there is no proof about this and also the uploader has a long history of copyright violations (in fact, this morning I've been reviewing her contributions and except this two, the rest were confirmed copyvios). — df|  11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


The person who took this photos, gave me the photos for the Wikipedia and she said me I can upload this photos same as own work; in fact I modified a little the photos with a program. Becouse that, I have the autorization for upload the images.--Sara metal666 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This uploader has a history of uploaded copyright violation images. The only way the above could be kept would be if permission from the copyright holder were sent via OTRS. Otherwise Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Finland expressways.png

This image is incorrect. For example see Finnish Road Administration: Road map. --Makele-90 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • That is not a valid reason for deletion per Commons:Deletion policy. I already uploaded a new version that fixes the incorrect length of Highway 4, adds three additional short segments and noted that, due to the scale, this does not purport to cover all expressways in Finland. Additional corrections are welcome, or better yet, fix it yourself. Jpatokal (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No need deletion anymore. Worst needs has been fixed. --Makele-90 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. --Apalsola t • c 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Finland expressways.png

Has been replaced by file:Finland motorways.png --Migro (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that File:Finland motorways.png is superior, but I have to wonder why you didn't just upload your version on top, as they're the same size, based on the same map and cover precisely the same subject. Jpatokal (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Because the filename is wrong. They are officially motorways, not expressways. --Migro (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:JollyGreenGiantBlueEarthMN2006-05-20.JPG

Derivative work. There's no FOP for sculptures in the United States. Statue erected in 1979, which means that whether or not it had a copyright notice is irrelevant. Powers (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep with {{PD-US-1978-89}}; my search did not find a statue there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MSProducts.jpg

Appears to be a duplicate of File:MsProducts.jpg Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PalioDelleCompagneAffiche.jpg

Derivative of a poster, which is presumably non-free and not the uploader's work. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Il's a poster on a public wall in a street for a not privaye feast in Italy, a simply event!!! -- Louis-garden (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Displaying a poster in public does not extinguish its copyright. Italy has no freedom of panorama. You're free to take photographs of posters and other works in public places for personal use, but you may not publish the result and you may not claim to be the sole copyright holder of the resulting work. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
After having read the page Freedom of panorama its appear :
  1. this law relates to mainly architecture (buildings and sculptures) (because nothing exists as regards 'right of quotation' in architecture a contrario of the text and the image - « droits de citation » in french & Diritto_di_corta_citazione in italian).
  2. If a poster has an author with rights, it acts of one produced of communication (excuse my poor english)
  3. And so, If there exist exceptions at this law of freedom specified for the paintings (murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters, gold signs) in certain countries, nothing really appears for Italy (but I could not read the official text - because the link is dead).
-- Louis-garden (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So the way it works is like this: all works are copyrighted, and you may not publish derivative works without the author's approval. This includes building designs, sculptures, posters, paintings, photos, books etc. In some countries, there are exceptions allowing you to publish derivatives of some types of works that are displayed in public. Italy has no such exceptions, so the default rule applies, meaning you may not publish derivatives of posters, even if they're displayed in public, without the consent of the poster's author. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
and this one
AfficheTerzieriCittadellaPi.jpg
also. -- Louis-garden (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. My view is that File:AfficheTerzieriCittadellaPi.jpg will also have to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Et alors ? So what ?-- Louis-garden (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


... et ceci ? -- Louis-garden (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Olio prodotto in Liguria.JPG

[edit] File:Empire armenien.jpg

Copyvio because a derivate of another map, which was deleted, cause it was a copyvio from http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/arm/history/main.html . You can reach the old deletion discussion over the link under other versions. --Don-kun (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) --Don-kun (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 11

[edit] File:Al_Qaeda_scrapbook_2.jpg

was in category Copyvio, I changed it in a normal dr original reason This file is a copyright violation because unfree image AP/nytimes http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/international/20020317terror_DOCUMENTS/for_DOCUMENTS_02_09.html Huib talk 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep -- I said on the talk page that I do not believe for one second that either AP or the New York Times can claim the intellectual property rights to these images, just because they published them. I said on the image page that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright protection. Please note that the NYTimes is not claiming the rights themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, is absolutely not copyright of NYT/AP, though one could argue it belongs to some random notebook-publisher. Sherurcij (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It seems to meet 'conditions' of {{PD-Afghanistan}}. I do not think it is relevant who else published it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bunicul.jpg

unclear copyright status; was uploaded with "Only for Wikipedia's users"; source website has no licensing statement at all; I don't know whether it might be PD already as depicted died in 1957. Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wittgenstein_Swansea_1947.jpg

The image was taken by Ben Richards who lived and worked in UK, the photo is taken in UK - so why should canadian copyright applie? Because it is from a canadian website? Clearly not. Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Philosophie Banner.png uses this photo. --Martin H. (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is placed on a Canadian university site. What is British law here? --Leoboudv (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment British law is the law of the country of origin. Photographer is british, taken in Swansea, UK. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Then I suppose it cannot be kept. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment KEEP because copyright status status seems to be the same as the other image of Wittgenstein, and qualifies for fair use: File:Wittgenstein1930.jpg. --162.83.247.195 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You may have noted, that this is Wikimedia Commons. We dont have fair use here, see Commons:Fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World Community Grid screenshots

There is an open source client, BOINC. There is the non open source World Community Grid program using BOINC. There are the screensavers published with tihs program, without any indication letting us to think the image is free. --Dereckson (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you comment on en:File:WCG on BOINC.png? This is a simple form of screen saver.--Namazu-tron (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling attention by other people for en:Talk:World_Community_Grid#WCG_screensaver_images--Namazu-tron (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As you can read en:File:WCG on BOINC.png, the licences stresses on the BOINC free license and the copyrighted status (This is a screenshot of copyrighted computer software, and the copyright for its contents is most likely held by the author(s) or the company that created the software.) on the WCG part. You can see the presence of a fair use rationale. Fair use is accepted on en.wikipedia, not on Commons. See Commons:Fair use. --Dereckson (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
File:WCG screensaver FIGHTAIDS@HOME.png, Licensing changed, still not acceptable?--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
All above files altered to GNU Lesser General Public License.--Namazu-tron (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete all. All of them depict non-free software and half of them are poor quality JPEG screenshots anyway. Just because WCG project software runs on top of BOINC does not mean that it has the same license as BOINC. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be an intrusive noob, but surely you all have more important things to do than worry about the legality of providing an image of a piece of public service software? The worst this picture could do is draw more people to the World Community Grid. In short, it is a waste of all of our time to even discuss this. Cheers! 98.141.72.165 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Some of these are certainly not free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Baba_en_Mai.jpg

Higher resolution picture (with exactly the same cloud pattern and more background visible) on http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yDpzdsXuflvn8flkAXWgbA which doesn't allow copying. Robotje (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Alois Kaltenbach.jpg

seems to be scanned from some book or mahgazine, see the rasters in picture --Motopark (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted in the meantime... --GeorgHH • talk   22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Alois_Kaltenbach.jpg

Will upload the image in the portuguese version of Wikipedia. KaVo do Brasil (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted in the meantime... --GeorgHH • talk   22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Richard Voigt.jpg

seems to be scanned from some book or mahgazine, see the rasters in picture --Motopark (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted in the meantime... --GeorgHH • talk   22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Richard_Voigt.jpg

Will upload the image in the portuguese version of Wikipedia. KaVo do Brasil (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted in the meantime... --GeorgHH • talk   22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SnorriByVigland.jpg

No Fop in Icelande or in Norway. Location of the statue unknown. --- Zil (d) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The statue is located in Reykholt, where Snorri died Helios (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 12

[edit] File:Nijfryslan.png

This file is satellite image, and cannot be PD-Self. The source given has a website (link on nl: wiki) but this image does not appear there that I could find. ---- Deadstar (msg) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition Dithmarschen was never part af the frisian territory, --79.229.18.194 09:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arendals_Tidende_sign.JPG

Copyrighted logo. Not PD-textlogo, and there is only noncommercial freedom of panorama in Norway. Kjetil_r 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a cropped picture of a sign on a building. Nothing wrong with that. See picture history for original picture. --KEN (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:De minimis. One might argue that the logo is de minimis in the original version (even though it IMHO is somewhat too prominent), but the current version is certainly not de minimis. --Kjetil_r 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. This is neither {{PD-textlogo}}, FoP nor de minimis. (Nor do I really think the original is, either. Commons:De minimis#An example says that "If the existence of the [copyrighted work] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." It also suggests that "A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the [copyrighted work] were to be masked out." I could easily edit the sign out of the original photo, but I doubt what remained — a piece of a nondescript building — would really interest anyone.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, so what if I crop this picture then [1] ? --KEN (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, as long as it's the edited version that you crop, not the old one with the logo in it. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a closer look at that car. ;-) the Sidhekin (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that, but in that image the logos on the car are barely visible: all you can really make out is the word "Tidende", which alone isn't eligible for copyright. So that's definitely de minimis: in particular, it clearly passes the requirements of both § 23a and § 24 of the Norwegian Copyright Law (original), being "part of the background or [...] of minor importance in the overall context" and not being "the main motif" of the photo. The subject of this deletion request, on the other hand, passes neither requirement, and thus according to § 24 may not be used commercially without permission from the newspaper.
Also, the closeup of the car at File:Arendals Tidene - bil.jpg does seem problematic: would anyone really be interested in the picture if it didn't show the logos? (I could edit them out, as I did with the station photo, but the result would just be a generic picture of a car of which we don't even know the manufacturer and model.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Per nom. and Ilmari. I'm sorry, this will have to be deleted: neither {{PD-textlogo}}, FoP or de minimis. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Why is this one still open, rather obvious case and six weeks old?

[edit] File:BrastelCard.jpg

not work by uploader; scan of commercial image with no license Prosfilaes (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Erang_bae2007_02.jpg

Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage nominated by user:Erang reason: possible copyvio or trademarkvio Huib talk 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Trademark is not a problem on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo1.JPG

There is no evidence that its copyright was not renewed. 22:55, 1 July 2009 Klodl

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep source image does not have a copyright notice, but I suppose that uploader User:Mutter Erde knew what she was doing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this a still from the movie, or a separate photograph taken during production (or purely for marketing after production)? If it is a still, then it would follow the copyright status of the movie, but it doesn't look like a separate photograph to me though. Click full resolution‎. [2] Original description says A Scene from the 20th Century-Fox Release "SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES" In CinemaScope. It can be seen at the bottom of the image. --Klodl (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a still from the movie; the movie was TechnoColor, when color was expensive, so any stills would have shown that off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if the color was converted into black and white, if the photo is a derivative work from the movie, the film it shows is not PD, so not free nor compliant with Commons rules. --Klodl (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing better to do? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG 78.55.99.36 08:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A still from the movie and a separate photograph taken during production are two different things. However, the fact that the still may not have a visible copyright notice on it does not indicate that it is public domain, as the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film. In case you're not aware, banned user Mutter Erde continuing on IPs cannot vote here. See [3] [4] [5] --Klodl (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed "not-renewed" to "no-notice". I assume that everyting is ok now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Lapstone.jpg

orginal reason: this is obviously not from 1856.
Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage --Huib talk 17:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PLA115.jpg

Seems to be a scan. I don't understand the source but at the moment I doubt it is uploders work. Avron (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stated source "личный архив" means "private archive". --217.118.66.102 05:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Megalithic_Observatory_Kokino.jpg

orignal reason: Inapropriate licence. The embassy have stolen the photo from a macedonian photographer
Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage Huib talk 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the nominator. Delete it!
please remain calm, this deletion request will be closed when there is a consensus. Huib talk 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The US embassy uses this photo on several places, for example here. It is not attributed to an outside source. So I think this was made by someone hired by the embassy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PLA50.jpg

I don't understand source nor author but I doubt the license Avron (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Source stated as private archive. --Rave (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vanderbilt_Mansion_Staten_Island1.jpg

original reason: This is not taken from a government publication; I printed and published this book with Israelowitz Publishing.
Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage Huib talk 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; it's probably not a government picture, but if it is that old, it's PD. I can't find it on the Library of Congress, but the original reason is nigh incoherent; this is neither a book, nor likely to be first published in a book with a living author or by Israelowitz Publishing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nino_popero.png

original reason: this image was created by me not by this user, please, delete it
Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage Huib talk 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nino_popero.png

i created this design. the user Watkins86 has used it without my consent. 77.224.116.2 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nino_popero.png

original reason: this image was created by me not by this user, please, delete it
Was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage Huib talk 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nino_popero.png

i created this design. the user Watkins86 has used it without my consent. 77.224.116.2 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sotomayor5_NassauHerald.jpg

Just because this image of Justice Sotomayer is on a US government website, doesn't mean it's copyright free. Only those images made by a US government employee are copyright free. For example, there's Sesame Street PR photos on international aid sites within the US gov, and they're (c) Sesame Workshop. This, unless we can prove elsewise, is still (c) Joe's Yearbook Photo Company, or whoever. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture in question is valuable to the article becuase it depicts the justice in her days at Princeton, a highly influential period of time in her life. If the licensing is incorrect, please help by chosing the correct liscense instead of simply deleting the file all together. Here are examples of images in use in the article taken from the same source. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Sonia Sotomayor 12 with parents.jpg
File:Sonia Sotomayor 14 8th grade graduation.jpg
File:Sonia Sotomayor 13 age six or seven.jpg
I changed the license to reflect the ones listed above. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For quick refrence the new license is a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License and the discription states: According to the May 2009 White House copyright policy, "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." No alternative licensing information is given for these photos, so they are assumed to be available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also to counter Nick Moreau's arguement, no other copyright information is given for this photo besides the CCA 3.0 as stated above, so we cannot make a judgement on the assumption that there is another copyright holder when there is no proof that one exists. -173.15.206.157 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep because no alternative licensing is given according to White House copyright policy, "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.". Movieevery (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mogadiscio_-_Postcard_from_the_past_(1940-1950)_-_edizione_Fotocine_-_made_by_M.Spialtini_(298261031).jpg

COM:DW not sure if it should be a PD images or if the photographer is still alive Huib talk 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Escudcanicosa.jpg

picture copied, maybe without license. There is one created by Wikipedia:Escudo_de_Canicosa_de_la_Sierra.svg 22:49, 30 July 2009 Rodelar

[edit] File:Karte Lage Kanton Basel-Landschaft.png

Geleiche Karte unter File:Karte Lage Kanton Basel Landschaft.png vorhanden 09:02, 30 June 2009 Tschubby

[edit] File:Kim_philby.jpg

Not work of U.S. government - taken from FBI's file of newspaper clippings about Philby. dave pape (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 13

[edit] File:Sandra 1966 track.jpg

changed format, now a ".png" image --Joan97 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Obraz_094.jpg

image of insect is too fuzzy to be identified to order Kevmin (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of insect in English? Can any one up load clear image?--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Larraguibel7.jpg

This cannot be own work. It is a serivative. The question is whether there is an applicable PD license for this stamp. ALE! ¿…? 15:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Estación (Las Torres de Aliste).jpg

repeated

[edit] File:Fritz_signature.jpg

Signature of General Motor president, Fritz Henderson, still alive. Dereckson (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stability_in_the_balkans_33.PNG

The map shows a country with wrong borders, territories are taken from Greece and given to the Republic of Macedonia. This is not neutral at all. 93.42.83.148 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; doesn't state that these are the boundaries of FYROM, but of region of Macedonia in a large acceptment; can be use to illustrate fyromian revendications also.--Phso2 (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Irredentistic map, no encyclopædic applicability whatsoever. Bogorm (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; No nationalistic POV is presented.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File:Cyto economo.PNG

per uploader; it's work of Economo and Koskinas, and Koskinas died in 1975 (not PD-Old)--Filip em (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DDR3.jpg

No Source 220.159.39.157 09:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The licensing block clearly states that the uploader is the creator of the image. --The CyberShadow (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that {{PD-self}} or {{self|}} in general can be counted as real source --D-Kuru (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/14

[edit] August 15

[edit] File:SLAMRAAM.JPG

This image is a collage containing several single images that were put togeher. It is not stated where these single image come from. No specific licence is given. High Contrast (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that it's a collage? Pruneautalk 11:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Havis Amanda

All these images are of Havis Amanda, a statue by Ville Vallgren (died 13 October 1940), so the statue is not in the Public Domain yet. It will, however, enter into the Public Domain on 13 October 2010, so is it possible (for administrators) to revert the deletions then or should we just re-upload the images? --Apalsola t • c 09:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep most of these; the photos where the sculpture is not the main subject are ok; the statue will be PD January 1, 2011. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of these. Specify your statement. Which files exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Helsinki HavisAmanda at Vappu 20050430.JPG is mostly about how Finnish students celebrate Walpurgis eve.
File:Helsinkis fontanas.jpg and File:Juhannus-helsinki-2007-048.jpg show a city square with fountain, a church, etcetera.
File:Visit-suomi-2009-05-by-RalfR-127.jpg just shows a mouth spouting water, maybe not very educational, but hardly a copyright infringement. And I do not know why people worry about this kind of stuff, when there are images of Oscar statuettes, copyrighted by an organization that actually might take legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Added two more images. --Apalsola t • c 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please delete the picture taken by me File:Havis Amanda.jpg (with a possibility to undelete it in 2011) - I messed totally with the years & wanna respect the law. I'd also like to thank User:Apalsola who kindly noticed my mistake. Pöllö (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Name of the sculptor: Ville Vallgren (1855–1940). Adding to category Category:Undelete in 2011. --Apalsola t • c 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) -- (adding noinclude) Apalsola t • c 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted those where the statue is either the main subject and/or the focal point. -- Cecil (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

With File:Juhannus-helsinki-2007-048.jpg I'm a bit in doubt. While the statue is not a focal point it is still quite dominate in the image. While I usually keep these image (see louvre pyramid decisions when it was part of a pic of the whole museum) the situation here is a bit different. It would have been possible to still get the place on foto without the statue. It is not an unavoidable accessory as would be the statues on the Helsinki railway station if you want to take a picture of the whole station. And because of it not being unavoidable there are a lot pictures of this place without the statue. So I have a tendency to delete it but not being sure I keep this request open for a second admin (and naturally other user) opinions. -- Cecil (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)



[edit] File:New_ruble.svg

Duplicate of Rouble_inofficial_sign.svg and used nowhere. SarRus (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Juhannus-helsinki-2007-029.jpg

Sculptor died in 1966; statue not in the Public Domain yet. However, the statue is not the main subject of the image. Apalsola t • c 12:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Crop the picture to remove the sculpture. The picture is of the sculpture looking at the building. The sculpture is by no means incidental. If the image of the building would be useful then keep that, otherwise delete. --Simonxag (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done: File:Kiasma 20070623.jpg --Apalsola t • c 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lucy_Lawless_and_Rene_O'Connor.jpg

The Flickr images of luy290368 appear to be a rest of the excessive Flickr washing by lawless sockpuppets. The Naming shema of the Flickr account - something related to Lucy Lawless and a birht date, fits inside the other sockpuppets. Martin H. (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some evidence is given with User talk:StevenLSears and on Wikipedia here for the latest case. I dont know the older cases. StevenLSears created a triangle construct to wash images from Flickr to Wikipedia to Commons using some Flickr accounts and w:en:User:LL290368. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Beautiful ladies in laiv show, don't delete please. Iconoclast (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Edificio_Apoquindo.jpg

Is there FoP in Chile? Dereckson (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) New deletion requests are below the closed one(s)!

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

New deletion requests are below the closed one(s)!

Contents

[edit] File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg

This files where nominated for speedy deletion because it wasn't alloud to take picture on the location, how should we act on this? I removed the speedies and made a normal DR. The link saying you cant take pictures: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa Huib talk 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Same for:

Added 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC) -->
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A previous discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allys a rubbin (1421413596).jpg ended in delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Per Burning Man Terms and Conditions all pictures of the event are for private use only. See below the quote from the waiver form everybody attending the event must sign.

2. I agree to comply with any and all rules, regulations, terms and conditions of the Burning Man event, including but not limited to the following: "Use of Images" I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT NO USE OF IMAGES, FILM, OR VIDEO OBTAINED AT THE EVENT MAY BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM BURNING MAN, OTHER THAN PERSONAL USE. I understand that I have no rights to make any non-personal use of any image, film, or video footage obtained at the event, and that I cannot sell, transfer, or give the footage or completed film or video to any other party, except for personal use, and I agree to inform anyone to whom I give any footage, film, or video that it can only be used for personal use.

The waiver also has legal "fine print" that allows BRC LLC to enforce. BRC LLC stated, that they do not want those images to be used commercially and that they do enforce this on several occasions every year. Clearly, such terms are incompatible with Commons. Almost all images in Burning Man category need to be deleted. Crapload (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - we do copyright law, not stupid Terms and Conditions. Multichill (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In this case Burning Man got the copyright. See below what every Burning Man attendee has to sign.

      I further agree that, in the event any third party displays or disseminates any of my images in a manner not authorized by this agreement, I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images, and I appoint Burning Man as my attorney-in-fact to execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment.

      These are not free images and as such, do not belong to Commons. Crapload (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That does not sound valid. There is no copyright problem. The only problem is that the photographer broke rules. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. What do you mean exactly "does not sound valid"? What is "not valid"? Did you know that photographer can assign copyright? Can sell copyright?
I am not sure those who are saying that everything is cool in this discussion read the article of Electronic Frontier Foundation criticizing the "Burninng Man Organization" (BMO) for the restrictions. Quote from the article.
The BMO also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos <...> forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos (i.e., no licensing your work no matter what is depicted, including Creative Commons licensing, and no option to donate your work to the public domain).
And I repeat, the copyright of the images is assigned to Burning Man except personal use situation. All those images are fruits of poisounous tree and need to be removed. -- Crapload (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. While there are a few images listed here, the discussion equally applies to all images taken at Burning Man event for the last 10 years. -- Crapload (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete In this case the organization do seem to have contracts giving them copyright. I would respect that fact unless a lawyer can find a clear hole in it. There's quite a big difference between this and the "no permission" arguments that we're getting. If however a photographer, entered without signing such a contract (a band member perhaps) or a photograph was taken from outside the fence, those images could be kept. --Simonxag (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, all rights assigned to BRC LLC, not withstanding any other arguments - these CANNOT be freely licensed. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. File:Afrika Burns, South Africa (2122139385).jpg should stay because it was taken at a different event. Crapload (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I am in this picture (File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg), and I did NOT give consent for my image to be published. Stagefrog2 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A person whose ticket is purchased by someone else may or may not sign any agreement, and a person with a stills camera only is not required to obtain a photography tag and sign the photography agreement; therefore I am not prepared to say that the uploaders do not have the right to upload the images and release them under whatever license they choose. Their breach of the Burning Man conditions is a matter between them and Burning Man, and Commons should not involve itself in that. However, the photos depicting identifiable people are uploaded in violation of COM:PEOPLE, as I am prepared to accept that event attendees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore:

There remains File:TrafficConeArt 1 from Burning Man.jpg and File:TrafficConeArt 2 from Burning Man.jpg, and I say Symbol delete vote.svg Delete these because they are 3-D creative works, and freedom of panorama in the USA extends only to buildings. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • These images were taken in a public place so don't violate COM:PEOPLE. I did tag the images with {{personality rights}}. As for the artwork. I agree that these should be deleted. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • COM:PEOPLE says that a private place is a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Because of the event policies, I think that there is such an expectation of privacy. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree, this is a public event visited by thousands of people. Multichill (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I know. I don't expect we'll agree on this one. But at least we agree on the three images with no identifiable people and the two artworks. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the photographs of the two women. Despite the "public place" rule regarding privacy expectations, I believe the fact that everyone had to sign a waiver agreeing to take photographs for personal use only gave everyone a certain expectation of privacy. I imagine that many people who participated in various stages of undress likely wouldn't have if they'd known that pictures taken of them could end up on places such as Wikipedia. It's one thing to be half- (or wholly) naked around a bunch of other people undressed in the same way, and quite another to have nude photos of yourself on a wikipedia article where your grandmother could come across them.
This is a very different case from museum rules prohibiting photography; photos taken in museums are generally of works of art that are in the Public Domain already, whereas photos taken at Burning Man are of living and easily identifiable people. I'm usually one of those people who says "Commons Is Not Censored" on nude-related deletion requests, but in this case it's about the people's expectations of privacy, which I put before the possible usefulness (which is limited) of these photos. -- Editor at Large • talk 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This image should be included in the discussion as it is the orginal from which the crop mwas made. Evrik (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to take into account the comments already expressed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg regarding this image. –Tryphon☂ 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC):
    • I would say keep with a personality rights warning, I think we should handle this the same as we do with museums. The image is licensed freely by the author and can be used without a problem if the museum starts complaining it will be something between the photographer and the museum, I think it should go the same here. Huib talk 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Commons collect free media and Commons is not censored so nudity is no problem. We delete images if they break the law or if they are out of scope. Beside these reasons we make few exceptions. If a victim in a traffic accident was photographed close up we could delete by moral issues.

This is an image taken at at a public place (it is not important who arranged the event) and we can keep that: "the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded". We tag them with {{personality rights}}.

As for "house rules" we have a guideline about museums. In short: we do not care about house rules - that is a matter between photographer and "owner of the house".

I see no other result than to keep Burning Man images unless they violate Flickr license, COM:FOP or is taken in a private place (inside a house etc.). MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg

I am the photographer. The copyright on this photo has been set to "all rights reservered." The subject of the asked me to remove the photo from public view on my photostream and I've honored her request. Please delete this photo immediately. 67.170.77.253 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - I'm very sorry to tell you but the files are all in use so we cant just delete them and since you released the files under a free license and a free license cant be revoked we don't need to honour you request if its against our policies. Huib talk 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - 67.170.77.253 please see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ specifically the section What if I change my mind?.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The request is only about this one. It is not the photographer, it is the subject that does not want this image. Just be kind. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pieter Kuiper are you saying that it is not the author that have nominated this image for deletion? Anyway we can keep this image. Question is if we are willing to delete images if someone regets that they ran nude in the streets. My quess is that deleting the image will not keep it away from the Internet. Problem is that the image is in use. --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not doubt that the photographer made the nomination, but that was because the subject had asked her. I have replaced this image in en:Burning Man with a different photo by the same photographer, one that is still visible on Flickr. This photo is also used in en:Nudity, and in the sinhalese wikipedia, where someone just copied the English text. The photo is by no means essential to an article about nudity. When this one is deleted, of course also the uncropped version should go. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - As strictly a matter of policy and law, the image stays. However, if enough people decide to set the precedent that images can be submitted and then retracted at will, this image can be removed. While removing this one particular image has few repercussions, I'm still not sure we want to set that precedent. (Curious: the original submitting photographer was registered and logged in, while this requester is not?) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Neutral: The image was freely licensed and it passed flickr review and is non-revocable in theory. Its not a bad picture and is in scope. But if the closing Admin wants to make an exception here and delete this single image, that's fine with me but it might unleash a precedent too. I have no strong views on its presence here. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is already a precedent in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allys a rubbin (1421413596).jpg, and that was without the subjects had been asking for removal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That one was taken in a tent as far as I can see. There you can expect some privacy. You cant expect that if you walk nude on a street. That makes a difference for me. --MGA73 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Well you should have thought about it before being naked in a public place or before releasing the picture under a free licence ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep public place, free license. Multichill (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not a public place - Takes place in an area closed to the public by the US Bureau of Land Management for a private permit use. See [6] Admission to the area is restricted to ticket holders and law enforcement. See [7] Item 12 of the permit stipulations [8] bans commercial photography without permission of the organizers and the Bureau of Land Management.JKPrivett (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is inside a structure within the middle of the event.
Further, as argued before by others, Per Burning Man Terms and Conditions all pictures of the event are for personal use. That is printed on the ticket. The ticket also incorporates this waiver everybody attending accepts by entering.

2. I agree to comply with any and all rules, regulations, terms and conditions of the Burning Man event, including but not limited to the following:

"Use of Images"

I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT NO USE OF IMAGES, FILM, OR VIDEO OBTAINED AT THE EVENT MAY BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM BURNING MAN, OTHER THAN PERSONAL USE. I understand that I have no rights to make any non-personal use of any image, film, or video footage obtained at the event, and that I cannot sell, transfer, or give the footage or completed film or video to any other party, except for personal use, and I agree to inform anyone to whom I give any footage, film, or video that it can only be used for personal use.

Further, through the original labeling of CC (and resultant upload to Commons, the photographer actually assigned Burning Man the copyright:

I further agree that, in the event any third party displays or disseminates any of my images in a manner not authorized by this agreement, I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images, and I appoint Burning Man as my attorney-in-fact to execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment.

So these are not CC photos, they are copyright of a private organization, improperly obtained in the first place, as is File:Burning Man 234 (241614377).jpg. So are these photos really important enough to waste the time of Burning Man and Wikimedia attorneys to go through a copyright action? JKPrivett (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
JKPrivett, please read Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. Making, or even implying, legal threats during discussions here is against policy, and could result in you being blocked from editing. Besides that, talk of legal action doesn't advance the discussion and isn't applicable in this situation anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not start wikilawyering. This is not enwp, and discussions about copyright will be like this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not enwp; the policy on legal threats does apply here; I won't start wikilawyering - glad I could clear that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Neutral: Should the uncropped version also be considered nominated for deletion? Also, what evidence do we have that this IP address is the actual photographer? While I'm not saying there's shenanigans going on, I do find it odd that it was first removed from the Burning Man entry by someone attempting to censor the article for children, then when that didn't work it was nominated for speedy deletion, then right after that failed it was nominated for unspeedy deletion. Mcantrell (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes to removing all versions. If you follow the flickr link for the source of the photo, and you can see it indeed has been removed from the photo stream. Feel free to use flickr's internal mail to contact the photographer and confirm that she requested it. The first request may or may have been prudery, but everything else has been based on privacy and rights management.
To MGA73, while I'm not sure you care, this photo was taken inside a tent as you can see the fabric above her.
Also, I find it sad that a decision was made against the majority vote and on the busiest day of Burning Man 2009, when many knowledgeable about the context were far away from convenient internet access.JKPrivett (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not what the majority says but mostly what laws say. Even if area is closed it could be considered "public". Many sports and music events are closed so you require a ticket to acces the area but that does not mean that it is not public. As for "tent or no tent" I would not call a "tent" like that a private place. It is crowded and it is not closed. --MGA73 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; free license not revocable. A person who receives a ticket from another person and uses a camera that does not take videos (e.g. w:Nikon D80) is never asked to agree to the conditions referred to above. Even if they were, the matter is between Burning Man and the attendee; Commons is not bound by their agreement. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Neutral: I believe the "All Rights Reserved" thing on the Flickr page means that these were never under the Creative Commons license in the first place? Or am I misunderstanding something about Flickr? Was the copyright on the Flickr photo changed after the fact? The copyright thing trumps the other rather sticky issues about the photo, I believe. As for the Burning Man Organization claiming ownership of all photos taken of the event, lets not go there -- it's not relevant, not legally tested, and I believe only exists so they can fend off porn sites stealing photos of naturists at Burning Man events and other such problems that have cropped up in recent years. As for it being in public/not in public, I think it's pretty clear that these are not "tents" but rather sun shade "canopies" -- there is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're dancing naked at an outdoor event with 50,000 other people walking around. Would she have an expectation of privacy if she was at, say, Woodstock, or at the Oregon Country Fair, dressed or undressed? No doubt there are several other photos of this young woman by other photographers hidden on other digital cameras out there. However -- I believe it's a moot point, as the copyright issue trumps the rest. Mcantrell (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, there's the official policy on subject/photographer/uploader reservations to take into consideration, but I believe the fact that this photo was never in the actual Creative Commons in the first place ("All Rights Reserved" on the Flickr stream) trumps it. Barring any changes in the photostream's copyright settings, that is. Mcantrell (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The license was indeed changed from a free license to all rights reserved (that's what the flickr review process is for). Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Then that changes quite a few things. Is there a log of those kind of changes on Flickr to confirm? What is the process about taking something OUT of the Creative Commons? Mcantrell (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Flickr doesn't have such a log, which is why we have the flickrreview process.
CC licenses aren't revocable (see [9]). Stifle (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg

and File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953).jpg and File:Burning_Man_234_(241614377).jpg

The closer wrote "This is an image taken at at a public place." That is WRONG, according to Commons Policy : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place Elvey (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's what's going on: http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599 --Elvey (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a private place in the traditional sense; the terms of attending make clear that attendees should expect to be photographed. However, given the particular circumstances (there is some expectation of eventual usage), I would Symbol delete vote.svg Delete out of consideration to the pictured person (and photographer's) request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
When I read the official rules in effect here, I find that it's a private place under those rules. I'd be surprised if you didn't. There's a certain level of privacy expected because of the terms the organizers set, and the photographer agreed to. This is a private place in the official rules of commons sense; the terms of attending make clear that attendees should expect photographs to be used for personal use only, or where the organizers approve, but that the organizers aren't liable if photographs are used otherwise. This image is as free as the wikipedia logo is if I take it and post it on flickr with a free license tag, and then copy it here to commons and have a bot confirm that it was made available under a free license! In other words, it's not free. The uploading of an image in commons that wasn't free doesn't make it free if the uploader doesn't have the right to free it. And that's the situation with these images.
These are the rules here, like it or not: Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named.
Burning man rules/notices:
  • You have the responsibility to be respectful to people you wish to record and to seek permission from them before recording their likeness or voice.
  • You may use any images that you obtained at the event only for personal use. No commercial use whatsoever may be made of any such images.
  • Burning Man is a private event that is held on public land.
Also Note: the photo was taken inside, not on the street, as others have suggested; the floor is covered with canvas; you can see 2 seams.--Elvey (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin needs to delete this image forthwith in order to save the Wikimedia Foundation the trouble of being served with what would be a valid DMCA takedown notice! http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599 makes it clear that leaving it up is asking for the Foundation -or worse, its ISPs/peers/transit providers/colocation host- to be served with a notice. Note, I'm not threatening; I'm just pointing out a preexisting threat. --Elvey (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please send it here and don't vandalize images. Multichill (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
AGF and don't throw around vandalism accusations like that here and on my talk page, Multichill. It doesn't help defuse the situation. The uploader says so AND I know it was not a valid license, and so I deleted it. You disagree, but I and others believe the license was void and have provided detailed rationales, such as here and at Village_pump#Burning_Man_photos and you're aware of that. You've put the license back. So now you may be held responsible for any problems putting that tag on the images produces if, as I claim, it's invalid.--Elvey (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And why are you telling ME to file a DMCA takedown notice? I have no rights to the image! Please delete the photo. --Elvey (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As I tried to explain before, w:expectation of privacy has a pretty specific definition under law -- which is the meaning used by our policies -- and in no way can be really applied to a mass gathering of people like that. That is "in public" by virtually all definitions. "A certain level of privacy" is not the same thing... and therefore may only be a accorded a "certain level of protection" anyways even if that turns out to be legally valid (do you have any pointers to court decisions on this matter?) A DMCA takedown notice would also imply copyright ownership, wouldn't it? That is hardly established. That said, in a "right" vs "wrong" feeling, given the circumstances, I do agree that this photo should be deleted -- photographs involving nudity likely do get more protection, and especially if the pictured person wants it taken down, I think we should. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Then please delete the images already. The pictured person HAS requested it be taken down. Apropos privacy: Actually, where they're at odds, the definition in the policies is the meaning in the policies, not some outside definition! But I read w:expectation of privacy and looked at how the phrase is used in policy. Actually, it's established that it's not "in public" by virtually all participants; didn't you read that? I read w:expectation of privacy and while it focuses on search and seizure, it does seem that it establishes that the pictured person DID have an expectation of privacy. What backs that? Court decisions? no. Court case? yes. With a settlement that clearly favored the plaintiff's claim that there WAS an expectation of privacy? yes! I'm glad you don't want this to be a test case that goes all the way to trial. --Elvey (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is the neither the organizer, nor the participants, generally get to define "privacy" for themselves -- that is a matter of law, and trying to define a large outside area with 40,000+ participants as completely "private"... I don't see it. Court settlements set no legal precedents, either (though rulings made on parts of the case might). If someone was making money off those videotapes, that can most certainly be a major problem (due to trademark etc. issues), but Commons has a narrow focus on copyright. The participants have no expectation of privacy (which is an expectation of not being photographed at all), but they do have some expectation of limited use of the photos, which is not the same thing at all. Where that stands legally may be pretty gray -- Burning Man can't create law, or redefine things to suit them, they have to follow it like everyone else -- and they may be in a situation which current law doesn't cover in the best way. And you typically need lawsuits with actual decisions to really start change that... common law systems work gradually that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I get that once images have been validly released under a free license, they're free. But in this case they were INvalidly released under a free license.--Elvey (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a very technical point on copyright law. Unless someone signed that copyright transfer (the photography tag), I don't think there has been any transfer, and the photographer still owns full copyright -- which they can then license. If they are party to a valid contract which prohibits that, then that is a contractual issue between the photographer and the other contract party -- not Commons. We will typically respond to these special requests by the photographer for deletion, as we don't want anyone getting into unintended legal hot water just by uploading an image. That is the photographer's choice though; they can choose to contest such assertions if they want, and they should be given that chance if they should so choose. Since the photographer has also requested deletion, that is a second very good reason for deletion here. In general though, using an unequal situation like purchasing a ticket to try to obtain copyright, model releases, power of attorney, etc. -- that seems overboard for a click-wrap license, and may be reason for someone to contest it. You don't know it is an invalid license, that is a claim of one party only. Commons is not a party to that dispute though, which is why we wouldn't make decisions based on it. They should be handled case-by-case I think (unless someone signed that photography tag). If you note I did vote for deletion, which if both the pictured person and the photographer are requesting it, should be a very strong reason to delete. I am not an admin though, so I can't actually do that. Normally deletion discussions like this are let run their course some so everyone can make their points (and the closing admin will pick the best ones). For the record, I strongly think this particular one (and the crop) should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see our first point now. You're saying that the the photographer still DID own the copyright when he tried to release it under a free license. While in my theoretical case with the logo, I don't own the copyright when I try to release it under a free license, so the validity of the licenses differ - yes? OK. It's a fair argument. --Elvey (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Carl: It's well established that the image at the top of this page was taken in a private place and requiring consent. Agreed? What makes a meetup more private than Burning Man? I would say a meetup is LESS private. AFAIK, the folks that run meetups don't try as hard as possible to place limits on the use of photograps taken there, through contractual terms on tickets, signs, etc.--Elvey (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the situation, that may or may not have been private -- off in a side room, that may have been private. I doubt we have too many photos with an explicit OK from the pictured person to use as an example though ;-) A meetup with 40,000 people is not private... scale does matter too. I'm not sure that Michael Phelps had any privacy recourse after that photo of his became public, even if he did have the expectation that nobody would take photos -- he was in public, enough. Erin Andrews, on the other hand, most certainly did (glad that sleazeball got arrested). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Here I don't think your argument makes sense - I don't think you can find any legal support for your 'scale does matter' claim. Wikimedia policy is clear: Photographs of identifiable people taken in a private place require consent.--Elvey (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I had always thought the Wales picture was taken in a private home -- that would require consent. If it was in a public restaurant... not so sure. In no way, shape, or form would I consider a gathering of 40,000 people "private", at least in the context of invasion of privacy. If it is, then every single Burning Man photograph (which shows people) across the web needs to be taken down, and not just here -- but it seems only a few get that treatment. So it is not an absolute thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and taking pictures in public is illegal too, don't you know? </joke> --Elvey (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistent with the request of the subject and photographer and uploader for deletion, given http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_at_the_request_of_the_subject.2C_photographer_or_uploader , the photos must be deleted. But that's hardly the only reason. It should be deleted because policy is that photographs of identifiable people taken in a private place require consent, and none has been given, and Burning Man is a private event with expectations of privacy defined in much detail in the ticket contract. --Elvey (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If it has been a traffic accident or a person getting her clothes ripped off (rape like) or if she had made an efford to "hide" from other people I'm sure the image would have been deleted long ago. But it is a person who did this on her own free will. She ran around nude even if hundreds? thousands? of people could se her. That is why I did not vote delete based on request of subject. As for the other reasons those has been answered several times before. --MGA73 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both. There's thousands of people around, no way you could say it's not a public place. Legal issues are a non-starter, as per the VP thread. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I hereby explicitly include by reference the arguments for deletion at Commons:Village pump#Burning Man photos. --Elvey (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I hereby explicitly include by reference the arguments against deletion at Commons:Village pump#Burning Man photos. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI Mike Godwin has answered these questions during Office hours: m:IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2009-10-15. Yann (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • And in case you don't want to read it, he says that Commons does not have to delete the images for copyright reasons. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is a resource to obtain knowledge of the general public. It is really the only reason. This isn't an important image for wiki to release for all eyes to see; specifically because it is not necessary to explain public knowledge on said subject "Nude".If both the photographer and the subject request the image to be removed it should be. There are many other available pictures that could be used to get the point across that are indisputably consented of.

Wikipedia did not release an image for all eyes to see. That was already done by someone else, and Wikipedia merely re-used it. Someone tried to remove the image, citing Burning Man rules. When that failed, someone claiming to be a person in the image tried to remove it, citing no permission. When that failed, someone claiming to be the photographer (but not the original submitter?) tried to remove it, citing change of heart. The current discussion is not so much about this particular image, and the myriad excuses for removing it, but about determining how similar matters shall be handled in the future. Any resolution here will surely be applied to countless future situations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If it was about precedent, it would have long sincce been deleted. Precendent: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allys a rubbin (1421413596).jpg. I'll comment on your talk page about your language. --Elvey (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading the comments there, that was a picture of someone getting a massage under a tent at Burning Man. Expectation of privacy for that is probably far greater than walking around outside, mingling with all attendees -- completely different situation and not a precedent. I would agree that many of the reasons to delete (which is the more general discussion on the Village Pump) have been far overreaching (I do not see any good reason to delete all Burning Man photos which is what those arguments amount to). But, we do listen to special requests on a case-by-case basis, where I think this certainly qualifies. I would agree with the unsigned comment a little above that the potential harm in keeping this particular photo far outweighs the benefit, and think we should respect the request of the photographer to delete it (and the Flickr page has indeed been removed from public view, validating that request). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In agreement with Carl, the above example does not show precedent; on the contrary, it shows a rare exception was made. The concensus from that discussion appears to confirm that there is no legal requirement to delete the image; there is no general expectation of privacy at the Burning Man event; Creative Commons policy doesn't require deletion of the image. Despite all that, the vote was to delete or pixelate the image as a special case consideration to the subjects. (There is also the noted difference in privacy expectation between a massage in a tent versus exhibition dancing through the crowds under a shade tarp.) If removal of this image was requested solely because "the subject in the image has requested it", I would not have been so quick to vote Keep above -- but Copyright and reserved rights were also mentioned, followed by discussion of legalities and policy. We can delete this one image as a special case, as long as there is no confusing that decision with any admitted requirement to do so -- I don't want to see someone pointing to this discussion as precedent-setting in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I support the removal. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)(copied from here)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Photo was taken INSIDE. Expectation of privacy. As detailed at Village Pump.--Elvey (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There was NO expectation of privacy. As detailed at Village Pump. Read it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Read a thread which I've read and posted to several times? WTF? Disagree agreeably. There WAS an expectation of privacy. Are you not reading what's been cited? READ where people who attend more or less overwhelmingly agree that there is an expectation of privacy. Arguably in the legal sense, and certainly in the 'I don't f*** over my fellow human being' sense by invading their expectations of privacy.--Elvey (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Either you didn't read the thread or you read it and misunderstood it or are intentionally misrepresenting it; I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and figured you didn't read it. You are free to correct me, of course. I have read the discussion "detailed at Village Pump", and reaffirm here that it does not conclude there is an expectation of privacy. Arguments were presented trying to show such an expectation, but they are certainly inconclusive, and in my (non-professional) opinion, even refuted. As for attendees overwhelmingingly agreeing there exists an expectation of privacy, could you please cite that specific information for me to READ? Thanks. I am assured by several Burner friends that while Black Rock City promotes uninhibited freedom of expression in its many forms, attendees are certainly not under the delusion that such expression is private in any legal sense beyond existing laws. Your argument that the photo was taken "INSIDE, and therefore there exists an expectation of privacy" was also refuted. The photo was taken in the Center Camp pavilion, better illustrated here and here. There are no walls, there is no floor (only dust tarps on the walkways), there is no ceiling (only shade tarps), and there is certainly no sense of privacy from the thousands of people milling about. Saying you are "inside" this pavilion is like saying you are "inside" the Yankee Stadium, as far as privacy concerns go. Finally, if you wish to argue for the deletion of this image based only on, "don't fuck over my fellow human being", I doubt many will contest. However, your persistant claims that it should be removed due to intellectual property rights, copyright and privacy laws, Burning Man rules or Creative Commons policy, will meet with logical, reasoned and impassioned resistance. The rights of the subjects in the photo are not the only rights involved here. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


I restored this image to Nudity [10] per discussion here and that there had been no decision taken and now it has been removed again on the basis of discussion here .It seems pointless to have a discussion (other than for future reference ) if it's going to be removed from every article anyway .Garda40 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If result here is kept maybe image will put back on. Anyway even if it is not used on a wiki it is not the same as it is not usefull. --MGA73 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Neutral My major concern remains that this specific picture seems to be being targeted. First it was commented out by a new user using odd grammar during the edit claiming that Wikipedia needed to be censored for children. Then almost immediately after I re-added it (Wikipedia is not censored) to the Burning Man article it was nominated for deletion citing the legally questionable Burning Man rights grab. When that failed it was nominated for deleting citing someone from an unverifiable IP address claiming ownership of the image. When that started to look like it was going to fail a new user (Stagefrog2) started deleting references to the file on other people's user pages and made a claim of being in the picture and that it was never an acceptable picture to begin with. It just seems fishy to me. Mcantrell (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS PS Evidence that the photographer IS the original submitter here. So it appears the photographer, original submitter, and subject have all requested deletion. --Elvey (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are

  • being dicks rude, disrespectful, inconsiderate, insensitive, selfish, unsympathetic, uncaring, ungracious,
  • violating our own policy as the photographer, original submitter, and subject have requested deletion for sound reasons and seem quite upset
  • violating the law as I understand it with respect to expectation of privacy.

if we keep this photo under those circumstances. --Elvey (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A deletion request is not about who can write the longest arguments bring them the most number of times. It is about giving good arguments. If they are allready said there is no reason for bringing them over and over. Calling users you do not agree with dicks is bad style. --MGA73 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I decided to bring together the main points in one summary statement. IMO, you are in no position to throw stones; you're the on who closed the first request with a keep and are in a position to delete it.
Yes I closed the DR the first time - that is why I do not close it this time. I do not mind a summary by the way but it seems you forgot all the parts you do not like. Anyway I think anyone who reads the whole DR knows what you think (only the dick part was new to me). --MGA73 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the update history of this deletion request page. Elvey has more edits than the everyone else combined - and has been warned to stop vandalizing the images (by removing the CC citations). Speaking louder does not count as more "delete" votes. Mcantrell (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
MGA73: You thought the picture had been taken outside when you closed the discussion, it seems pretty clear! Mcantrell: I removed the CC citations because I thought they were invalid. That wasn't vandalism. And attack my arguments; not ad hominem.--Elvey (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No, MGA73 thought the picture was taken in a public place, and that was absolutely correct. MGA73 never said anything about inside or outside. That strawman will be shot down every time it gets propped up. Elvey, are you still asserting that we should remove the image because we are legally obligated, or are you suggesting we should remove it to be considerate in this special case? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At least on English language wikipedia, a decision was made years ago to respect Burning Man's position, in return for Burning Man allowing a couple "fair use" images. [[11]] Can these not also be treated this way?JKPrivett (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The link you provided shows that a discussion was initiated, but there is no indication that a decision was reached or a solution found. Did the discussion resume elsewhere? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
First: No fair use on Commons. Second: Whatever enwiki does has little relevanse on Commons. Enwiki does not like to show nude people - Commons however is not censored. --MGA73 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: No expectation of privacy: Subject is an entertainer (dancing next to a guitar player while in a costume of sorts); Picture was taken in a public place; Subject was outdoors in a crowd. Creative Commons licensed picture. Personal suspicion of sockpuppet deletion requests as detailed above. The entire situation stinks, to be honest -- I do feel bad if it honestly was the subject of the photo requesting it be removed, except I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever and my sympathy is tempered by the "dancing nude in a crowd of 20,000 people" thing: Did the subject not expect to be photographed in the age of 10 mega-pixel cellphone cameras? The picture HAS been blocked on the photo stream, but that does not prove the anonymous IP poster was the photographer -- and even if it was, Creative Commons licensing comes into play. Not touching the Burning Man Legal Rights Grab with a 10 foot pole, let those wiser than I take that one on. Mcantrell (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable that of all her photos in the 2006 Burning Man set the photographer withdrew this single image from public viewing. Probably because the subject had asked her. Come on guys, be gracious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly true. It is verifiable that many photos in that photographer's Burning Man Set have been withdrawn, including the image we are discussing here (note the several breaks in the numerical sequence of photos). It is still possible one of the two identifiable subjects in the image asked the photographer to remove the image. It is also possible someone merely claiming to be in the image contacted the photographer - considering previous removal attempts have already been made by various people. As for being gracious, that is not the issue. The deletion requests above wrongly say we should delete because we are legally obligated to do so - hence the blowback. If you would like to open a new request that says, "While we are in no way obligated to do so, legally or otherwise, we should delete this one image as a favor to the subjects depicted in the image who apparently have requested its deletion", you would probably receive a different response. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the ip-number writing as the photographer did ask nicely. Anyway, this photo of the same subject is still there, and should be fine as a replacement. This seems to be a new DR, so I think I can repeat my !vote to Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that picture myself, and was coming in to mention it. I would have to point out that picture is marked All Rights Reserved and thus isn't acceptable. Mcantrell (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the initial re-opening above came from the photographer -- and said photographer has removed the image from Flickr so I don't see any reason to doubt that. They asked nicely, under special-case grounds, and got... mixed responses. After which it kind of snowballed. I will agree that the privacy/copyright/Burning Man rules arguments aren't necessarily valid, and should not be accepted as a blanket rule (all of which would mean we would have to delete every single Burning Man photo on Commons), but should very much be sensitive to particular situations like this. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues speaks to this -- there should be a way to have a photo illustrate that aspect of Burning Man without having the individual be identifiable. So, based on the photographer's request (and presumably pictured person's request) alone, I still emphatically think we should delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Pieter and Carl: No one said the deletion requests weren't "asked nicely". You are ignoring the parts of the requests causing the "mixed responses": "because it wasn't alloud to take picture on the location" and "The copyright on this photo has been set to 'all rights reservered.'" These words incorrectly imply that we do not have the right to use these images. There is a big difference between asking us to act out of sensitivity and telling us that we are legally obligated to act a certain way. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Those do appear to be the sticking points. The first point (location) is still under discussion -- I believe that this counts as a public area given the crowd and the general openness of the area (there aren't even walls). The second point (all rights reserved) was already discussed -- the bot verified this was originally a CC image, the photographer changed it after the fact, which apparently doesn't work. Mcantrell (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I most certainly believe it is a "public" area when it comes to privacy law -- there is no blanket expectation of privacy. Unless the photographer signed an explicit statement transferring copyright, then the license is fine too (yes, those are irrevocable). It is mostly a moral issue to me, though there might be a legal argument in that the damage potentially done with the details we are exposing (an identifiable person, and a somewhat uncensored, R-rated image) far exceeds what we need in order to give an accurate depiction of what Burning Man is like. That is legitimate reason to have photos, and we should not be limited to only what the Burning Man organization wants us to see (which would be the ultimate effect of many of the wider-ranging arguments if we accepted them and I suspect what causes a lot of the resistance), but there is still a point where we can expose damaging details about identifiable folks which far exceed our educational need (by a long, long shot). It is certainly possible that a judge would be sympathetic to that argument if it ever came to an actual legal challenge -- privacy law is for the most part common law (i.e. not written, but rather built up by court decision precedents) which therefore can shift with the times and can differ on a state-by-state basis. If a judge felt it is "wrong" in the general balance of things, then they may try to find a way to rule that way despite earlier precedents. You can't ever be 100% sure with stuff like this, even if based on previous precedents we are aware of it seems unlikely. But it still feels "wrong" to me in this case; we could get the same point across with another photo -- censored or from another angle -- which doesn't show as much and doesn't have an identifiable person in it. We should be sensitive to that in general, and especially if the photographer and/or pictured person requests it for reasons like this (and not just out of spite). I will note that someone added another photo to the re-opened DR, after many pages of discussion which does not apply to it, and which does not seem to have been requested by the photographer. My deletion vote is solely for the image named in the page title and the crop made from it. The other has had its licensing changed on Flickr but is still available for public view, so there appear to be no privacy issues with it. The main nominated one has been withdrawn from public view on Flickr; that image should be separately nominated (by the photographer) if there is a separate reason for that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept The previous time this image was nominated it was established that the image was taken in a public place, that the house rules are something between the photographer and Burning man and that the image was release with a valid Creative Commons license. The photographer now asks if the image can be deleted. No. The image is in scope and was released the image with a irrevocable license. Multichill (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/16

[edit] August 17

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)

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

[edit] File:SihColorWheel.png (and the thumbnail version File:Colorwheel Icon.png)

Copyvio of http://r0k.us/graphics/sihImages.html but is it copyright eligible? Dereckson (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the image in question, and placed it in the Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution license. To avoid further complaints, all images at

are my own work, and exist in the Commons specifically to share with others.

Rich Franzen, author of http://r0k.us/rock/ - 2*6 (talk)

Oh, sorry, I missed the point you're the author of the website. We can close this NfD in this case. --Dereckson (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Piet_Pelle.jpg

This 50s promotional material is not self made and as such cannot be licensed by uploader. Below files are from the same booklet:

They are still copyrighted.

User has also uploaded files from the 1912 booklet, but two of them are licensed with an "I, the copyright holder" notice. (File:Piet Pelle 1912.jpg (correct with PD-old), File:PP 1912 1.jpg (incorrect PD-self) and File:PP 1912 2.jpg (incorrect PD-self)) Can we just change that to PD-old? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brazilian Waxing.ogv

It doesn't look like made by himself, rather then recorded by him. iGEL (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) --iGEL (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially the explaining female voice-over suggest that this is a part of a broadcasted show. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. Delete mahanga (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Unless a copyright violation can be identitifed then the video should receive the benefit of the doubt. The video plays an important role on the "Bikini waxing" article on the English Wikipedia. Due to the intimate nature of the procedure it is difficult to locate footage demonstrating the process, so it would be unfortunate to lose the video unless we are sure it violates copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Very useful video but does seem like a bit from a broadcast or something. Did anyone try to contact the author or do video searches on google or etc? Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. In the absence of anything but hypothesis to the contrary, I'm inclined to trust the uploader's claim of rights to the clip. Avram (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.fehairandbeauty.com/ found via google by looking up "fe london" - the users name. This might lead to the copyrights owner.
Keep. I found the video very useful and informative. Unless concrete and verifiable reasons are found to delete it, it should stay. Cynthiamonstertalk 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per above.--Lamilli (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/18 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/19 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/20 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/21 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/22 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/23 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/24 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/25 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/26 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/27 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/28 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/29 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/30 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/31

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/08"