From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

< Commons:Deletion requests

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] September

[edit] September 1

[edit] File:Afrikaansdistrib.gif

New png version available --Umdiaqualquer (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Image21a.jpg

Screenshot of a copyrighted documentary. J Milburn (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Its copyrighted work. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I had looked at other images from this documentary before. Ekedalen is the producer and copyright owner, and I believe the person that also wrote sv:Welcome to Hebron. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A note to that effect (or, even better, an OTRS ticket) on the image page would be great. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pepe_Soriano-La_Nona_-1979.jpg

This file was nominated for Speedy deletion, the original reason:Article 34 of cited law says that movies are protected until 50 years after all these people are dead: the productor, the director and the plot author. I don't feel secure enough to delete it right away Huib talk 09:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to the current copyright law: http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm

Second paragraph of article 34 states:

Para las obras cinematográficas el derecho de propiedad es de cincuenta años a partir del fallecimiento del último de los colaboradores enumerados en el artículo 20 de la presente.

For movies the copyright lasts for 50 years starting from the death of the people cited on the article 20 of this law.

Article 20 states:

Salvo convenios especiales, los colaboradores en una obra cinematográfica tiene iguales derechos, considerándose tales al autor del argumento, al productor y al director de la película.

Unless special agreement, the creators of a movie have equal rights, considering as such the author of the script, producer and director of the film.

Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep This picture is not a frame from the movie but a photograph used for the advertising of the film. There are two diferent jobs: a) the film has a lot of authors and 50 year right; b) this picture has only one author and 25 years right.--Roblespepe (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The pictures used for advertisements have some text for advertise (obviously) the film, which this picture lacks. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a proof' that it was picture taken only for promotional purposes and we can keep it. As long as it can be assumed that it is a screenshot of the movie it has to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All the legal data is provided. It is a photograph (not a movie) taken in 1979 and it is at the Cinema Museum. So it gathers all the elements established by , Law 11.723, Article 34.--Roblespepe (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal data? The description says: Pepe Soriano, como "la nona", en la película "La Nona" de 1979, so you are asserting that this is a frame from the movie. You will need a written statement from the museum that this is not a frame, and change the description accordingly. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep A publicity photo, even if it would a still from a film. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Neve_and_Gliz.jpg

Was in the category Speedy delete with the reason: still subject to the original copyright But I don't feel secure enough to delete it without communety consensus Huib talk 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be one of the (apparently) self made photographs uploaded by an Italian Wikipedia editor. See it:Utente:Habemusluigi/Foto. There is more than one image from this camera but at least 3 cameras in use. I think somebody should talk to this person in Italian and establish what the real status of the pictures is. --Simonxag (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I contacted the user Habemusluigi, can you please explain what is exactly the copyright problems? --Gildos (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Who took the photographs they have uploaded? Why is there more than 1 camera being used? --Simonxag (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I sent him an Email. --Gildos (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends, my name's Luigi Capozzi known in wiki with the username Habemusluigi. The subject doesn't have any problem of copyright becuse every photo I uploded it's mine. The three dolls are from left to right: Neve, me and Glitz. We are in Piazza Castello, called for the Olympic games "Medals Plaza", and not in Piazza Solferino. I don't understand because you have problem if I used more cameras... my cameras aren't jealous. --Habemusluigi (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I hope you will delete the template {{delete}} from the photo now. --Gildos (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I see no problem; apparently he asked someone to make a picture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tibetan_writer_Woeser_210.jpg

The RFA terms of use are not free enough for Commons ("requires that such material be designated as an excerpt and that the excerpt shall not alter or distort the fundamental meaning of the original content.") terms of use. If the uploader is truely the photographer : he should send an E-mail to COM:OTRS and confirm that he is not bound by an exclusivity contract with RFA. Teofilo (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually a photographer remembers when and where he took a picture. Why don't we have more details ? Which month in 2006 ? In which city is the picture located ? Teofilo (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No new information since two months: probable copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Had been deleted and was restored, details at User talk:Túrelio/Archive1#File:Tibetan writer Woeser 210.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LEMUR.JPG

out of project scope, vandalism, and user not active (only uploaded this file and put on user page, obviously as a joke) Visionholder (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, user image -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... Anyone can post any kind of non-sense, gibberish, or even blatantly offensive images, and it is protected as long as they put it on their user page? –Visionholder (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true that this is the users only upload and he hasn't been active since >2 years. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess let me state this another way: This picture is graffiti, but protected by being placed on a user page. I wouldn't care, but it shows up on searches for "lemur" images because of its name. Furthermore, it can be used in vandalism on other Wiki pages, just like File:Ringtailedlemurs121208.jpg was before I had it deleted (same reasons, but not displayed on a user page). Furthermore, why protect it? The user has only made 3 contributions (uploading that image, adding it to his/her user page, and adding a comment about it on his/her user page), and has not been active since (over a year). By not deleting it, we essentially confirm that Commons is a public garbage can... which is what it feels like I'm sifting through this site looking for images. –Visionholder (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete, look at his contribution in en-wiki -- no useful edits at all. Vandalism, childish edits... No useful contribution into any WMF project, why we should keep it? Trycatch (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Used on user page. If that gets deleted then so should this be, but until then the user can be a silly lemur if they want to be. Any image can be used for vandalism. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Osman.png

Susan Osman noted as creator/Source, as this is an image of her, this is unlikely. Uploader licensed it with PD-Self, which, unless she is Susan, cannot be true either. ---- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep We normally accept that people's photos of themselves are self made. Sometimes they do get a friend or passer by to help, but often they use the camera's timer. --Simonxag (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PolytechNiceSophia4.jpg

This is an aerial photograph, and with the logo looks like it came from the college's webpages. I doubt this is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Divrigi02.jpg

Converted from a speedy by User:Padawane for "Copyvio de [1]" to rfd by me, as I have some doubts that the photos are identical. Surely they show the same item, but our image has slightly different toning and misses the watermark that the webphoto carries. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Les images sont très superposables (en ouvrant deux onglets avec [2] et [3]. Elle existait sur l'autre site avant d'arriver sur commons (d'après webarchives) --P@d@w@n e 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Islambouli_cropped.JPG

This image was uploaded to en: wiki saying "old photo from the family album". This looks like a photograph published in a newspaper, of someone in jail. (For some context about the image from en: wiki: Khalid Ahmed Showky Al-Islambouli arranged and carried out the assassination of the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat.) -- Deadstar (msg) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless uploader can clarify, delete on the unlikeliness of the claim. If you put a newspaper clipping in your family album, that doesn't give you rights to the image. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep looks like {{PD Egypt}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Club_logo.jpg

Source website does not clarify that this is free use. I have uploaded it locally at enwp under a non-free license. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:KHD-Statuten .pdf

Statute of an association (see w:de:Kärntner Heimatdienst), text only and not usefull according to Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Die Statuten sind mit der Bestätigung der zuständigen Behörde (letzte Seite im PDF) beglaubigt.
Der KHD hat auch die Nutzung all seiner Texte und Bilder beim Wikipedia Projekt bereits bekannt gegeben.

Darum geht es nicht, es geht darum, dass diese Texte nicht nützlich im Rahmen unserers Commons:Projektrahmen sind. Dieses Dokument mag gut sein auf der Webseite eines Vereins, auf Commons gehört es meiner Meinung nach nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In dem von dir zitierten Artikel verweise ich auf 3.4.1 In anderen Wikimedia-Projekten verwendete Datei. Diese Datei gehört eigentlich zum Artikel über den Kärntner Heimatdienst(KHD).

Berechtigt, ich verweise auf Commons:Projektrahmen#PDF- und DjVu-Formate, ff., genau wie z.B. Geschäftsberichte von Gesellschaften gehören Satzungen nicht auf Commons sondern, wenn vom Verein erwünscht, auf deren Webseite. Für Commons bietet sowas keinen Mehrwert, da eine Vereinssatzung in keinem Projekt als Projektinhalt (nicht als Verweis oder Quelle) aufgenommen würde. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrios, de réir Cómhaoin:Scóip tionscadail. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 2

[edit] File:Knight's_Uintathere.PNG

From 1926, so no PD US: FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment May or may not be PD-US, but for 1923 or later a reason or explanation is needed and if possible a more specific tag. Infrogmation (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking it might be non renewed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-renewal is quite likely for a periodical. - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Shokunin United Kingdom map.svg

This map duplicates several better, larger, more accurate maps. OwenBlacker | Discussion 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, a quick check suggests this image is not used on any Wikipedia projects. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems harmless enough, though, why bother deleting? - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Compact SVG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kaithgarbhlive.jpg

unlikely own work by uploader, TinEye shows a larger image with same content as a result. --Martin H. (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep The DR us based on circumstantial evidence. Sv1xv (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep The "original" is smaller and not as clear, so that website cannot be the source. Grk1011 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment to clearify the size: The TinEye found has the same 4:5 aspect ratio but is larger - not smaller. The Commons image with 500px is a typical webpreview thumbnail size. Additional the image named "1.jpg" was there aleardy in November 2007 as we can see through the web archive. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, the wikipedia one is much clearer to the extent that I don't think the image was photoshopped. Grk1011 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment If someone wanted to steal an image, there are better ones on the net; but this is all very confusing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We do find ourselves deleting poor quality copyright violations as well as good quality ones. --Simonxag (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Very likely copyright violation --High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Files uploaded by Greekboy on en.wikipedia

Files uploaded by Greekboy on en.wp can be considered copyright violation. I already deleted File:VissiEurovision2006.JPG which was a realy blatant one bearing the same false claim that he created the file and edited it for Wikipedia (see the original log). See also the user gallery on en.wikipedia for the images I can not list here. You may find this request related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Egtheod on en.wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Vissi2007NYCNokiaTheater.jpg
~~File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg~~
File:Antique Paparizou Panagiotidis.jpg
File:IriniMerkouri.jpg
File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg
Keep The Kalamata Paparizou image was uploaded by Imperatore, not Greekboy. He took that at the concert and has more; I remember picking that image from his camera when he got back. For the Vissi NYC picture, I attended that concert with Greekboy. The last three I am not sure of their origin, but I see no proof of them being copied from another site. Also, I don't get what you are suggesting from the link to the wikipedia gallery. All of those images there are clearly marked as being non-free. Grk1011 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep No real evidence of wrongdoing. Spurius deletion request based on circumstantial evidence (or no evidence at all!). Sv1xv (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly accentuate the file VissiEurovision2006.JPG, this original upload log says the same like all others (A photo I took of... cropped for Wikipedia) but it was simply stolen from Getty Images. I dont think that this is no real evidence of wrongdoing, sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, you need more than that to prove that a specific image is a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I have to say it is rather out of character for Greekboy to be uploading copyright violations and to engage in deliberate deception, I would like to see him explain things before any further action is taken, though a lot of the images listed were not actually uploaded by Greekboy. File:VissiEurovision2006.JPG explanation does not quite add-up, from the deleted history on the English Wikipedia I can see the original upload was a clean copy, yet the one at Getty Images has an anti-copyvio tag across it, how did Greekboy get this removed without a trace on the uploaded image? I wouldn't have thought it would be that easy. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was taken from another site, getty sells images to other media... Please compare the getty image and the upload. The Getty image is larger at the bottom but is exactly the same at the rest except a very few white pixels at the very bottom that may result from a cropped watermark from another website. --Martin H. (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done several Google Image searches and not successfully found the image on a website other than Wikipedia, Commons, or Getty. I did find this but on comparison it appears to be a different image from the position of the subject. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The copyright holder is known exactly, and it is obvious that the image was not own work as claimed. I dont think its our duty to exactly retrace this bad behaviour to finaly get some random website that only reuses this image. Dont waste your time with this image. --Martin H. (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

These are serious allegations being made and I would like as much information as possible. Once again, I would like to hear Greekboy's side of things before I come to a conclusion. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is terribly confusing - in this edit someone changed authorship in the license from Greekboy to Egtheod. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Strange. It says in the old version that it is Imperatore's image (like I said above) and that Greekboy reuploaded a cropped version. Maybe that change is a copy/paste gone wrong? Grk1011 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I have done an investigation via private correspondence, and while I cannot go into details for privacy unless Greekboy himself wishes to reveal details, it appears none of the images were stolen. They are either Greekboy's or were used with permission, though I recognise there is no evidence of permission for any of them. It would be good if Greekboy were to identify which images are permission based or his, and for the former either give evidence permission or have them deleted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Question: : All images are released as "PD-self"/own work. No other author mentioned, no permission mentioned. Also the permission must come from the original copyright holder, I think this is hard or even impossible for File:VissiEurovision2006.JPG. The wrong "self" claims sound even more questionable. Why didn’t he indicate the correct sources and copyright holders with his uploads, why don’t he correct the uploads listed above immediately? --Martin H. (talk)
  - Comment I cannot speak for every action that Greekboy takes, and again for respect of his privacy I am not revealing details here. I can say however that there appears to be a mix-up on what images are his and which are permission based. I don't know why Greekboy has not commented here and I am going to prod him on his enwiki talk page to do so as it is rather important. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Sorry about the late reply. I totally missed the first message, and I haven't logged in since the second notification. I am not really sure why the File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg picture is listed for deletion, as it was clearly stated that the picture is by User:Imperatore. I just moved it (with his permission) because of an accidental generic file name upload. If I recall correctly, I even linked the original link, and if you look in the logs, my version was uploaded something like 5 minutes after his. Regarding the rest of the images, they are in fact taken by me with the exception of File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg, which a friend took and sent me. I can definitely get him to send in permission. Regarding the ill-fated File:VissiEurovision2006.JPG picture, that picture was taken by a friend of mine, who is a professional photographer. I asked him if I could use it, but at the time, I did not know there was an "official" process for submitting someone else's work. I honestly don't think its worth it anymore, as there are enough pictures of Vissi anyway. Regarding my summaries, they say "Cropped for wikipedia", because they are just that --- cropped and edited in photoshop for wikipedia, for optimal results. For example, the Merkouri picture originally included other people in the background which I edited out for wikipedia. I hope that this reply clears up any confusion. Greekboy (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for the clarification Greekboy, things make more sense now. Keep File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg provisionally pending correction of licensing and summary, as well as evidence of permission. Keep all others indefinitely as no issues which justify deletion now that Greekboy has clarified things, and as said File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg is not his image anyway. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am re-affirming my above recommendations per Greekboy's good record on the English Wikipedia I have no reason not to assume he is telling the truth unless there is proof otherwise, which currently there isn't. File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg does need to be sorted out or deleted (hence the provisional keep), the date for this one is 1992 which means Greekboy could not have created, but he says he didn't so I find nothing suspicious in this story. There are two other images taken in 2003, I find nothing suspicious in this either (assuming Greekboy did not make a mistake with the dates, which is easy to do), I could operate a camera and take photos of that quality from about 12, perhaps younger. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Removed the File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg, the logs and authors where mixed up, fixed now and this image realy not belongs here. I read Greekboys answer, thanks for the answer but sorry, I dont belive one word, especially not the photographer story. We are talking about 4 images now, File:IriniMerkouri.jpg, File:Antique Paparizou Panagiotidis.jpg and File:Vissi2007NYCNokiaTheater.jpg are claimed own work, File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg is, per above, not own work. Ok, you admire that it is not own work but the author information is still not corrected... So delete as missing essential information on both, source and permission. You say on your en.wp userpage that you are a teenager, so you are maximum 19 years old today. Some photographs are dated to 2003 - means at the age of 13... hard to belive. I not withdraw my nomination, to much inaccurate information. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have made my case, and I honestly dont think it matters if you have nit-picky doubts. I don't need to provide a life story after uploading some pictures I took and uploaded to wikipedia under the appropriate licenses. Right now you are making assumptions about my age (based on userpage boxes that I have not updated in well over a year) and how old I could be to operate a camera. Perhaps you would also like me to scan and upload my tickets from the 2007 show at Nokia Theater and submit affidavits from witnesses at the other shows? Greekboy (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete In the description of File:VissiDaimoneslive.jpg Greekboy stated: "I created this work entirely by myself." Above it was a "friend" who could send permission. I find it hard to believe him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is a MediaWiki generated statement from the English Wikipedia upload form, where the images were from, hence why it appears on multiple images. It is quite normal for contributes, particularly new ones, to make such erroneous claims while uploading with lack of experience with upload forms, copyright laws, and how images are dealt with, so it is not proof of deliberate deception. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Thats exactly the problem: while uploading with lack of experience - at the time of upload GreekBoy was a Wikimedian for 3 1/2 years with >2600 edits, ~100 in the file namespace. You may excuse the initial problems he had with Anna Vissi photographs, but not this uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I disagree, if his story is true, which I have yet to see any proof to show otherwise, he had little experience or understanding on uploading photographs by other people, and hence it is quite understandable that he uploaded the images incorrectly (i.e. using the wrong upload form), and just didn't correct the sentence either thinking it was not necessary or he didn't notice it to be wrong. I might have an issue if he had physically written the sentence that this was his own work, as implied by the delete vote above, but that is clearly not the case. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep 94.68.20.168 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would you mind giving a reason to help a conclusion be made of this discussion? Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Files uploaded by Egtheod on en.wikipedia

All images - see also the en.wikipedia Gallery for the remaining images not listed here - appear to be taken from various websites or videos, no EXIF, small size. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaithgarbhlive.jpg which may be merged to this request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Chrispa-live thalassa.jpg
File:Haris Alexiou - live performance in Athens.jpg
File:Annavissi-livebrussels.jpg
File:Martakis-madvma2008.jpg
File:Kellykelekidou-foslive.jpg
~~File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg~~ "Not his image", says User:Grk1011. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is a spurious deletion request based on circumstantial evidence. Sv1xv (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't see any proof that these are not legitimate photos. The image sizes are almost certainly small/different because they were cropped, probably using a program that inadvertently removed the EXIF. Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment File:Haris Alexiou - live performance in Athens.jpg and File:Martakis-madvma2008.jpg do have EXIF, from different cameras, but that need not be a problem; if one wants to steal, there are better images on the web. However, authorship of File:PaparizouLiveKalamata.jpg is confused according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Greekboy on en.wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Not enough evidence to justify a blanket deletion, particularly for images in use on other projects. I don't really see the relevance of images uploaded on the English Wikipedia; they have been uploaded as non-free so are obviously copyrighted, but unlike Commons the uploading of non-free images is allowed on the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Images uploaded onto the English Wikipedia are not under the juristiction of Commons Deletion Requests anyway. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment the english Wikipedia gallery is linked because I always compare all uploads (except valid fair use, only own work) of one uploader. There are two more images on en.wp. All uploads have one similartiy: Low quality by any standard (size, style of upload, exif, different photographic styles, description, ...) except the content. Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete all, based on new evidence, case for deletion is now convincing. [4] seems like pretty clear cropping of [5], with the logo just cut out of the Commons version. I have prodded Egtheod to respond here as per his/her enwiki edit history (s)he appears to still be around. His/Her uploads can no longer be trusted, so there should perhaps be a separate nomination for images (s)he uploaded on enwiki and claimed as free as well if this deletion request goes through. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep 94.68.5.91 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I found the Martakis image is stolen from http://www.flickr.com/photos/madtvgreece/2961070751/, all watermark carefully cropped.

Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete All of them - cannot be trusted, too much work to sort out. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MilocObilicFragment.jpg

No valid source specified. No author specified. UV (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This image counts hundreds years. It appears at several wikies. Domitori (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The photograph shows not only a 2d fresco but also shows 3d architecture. Therefore, we need to know who was the photographer and we need to know whether the photographer released its photograph under a free license (and which free license). --UV (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment some enwp admin should look at the original uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment the enwiki upload log points to srwiki: [6] Some srwiki admin should look into the original upload. --UV (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:UAE_PASSPORT.jpg

uploaded by a notorious user on English Wikipedia who has uploaded passport pictures of all sorts, found wherever he/she can get them online. Extremely unlikely Erasheed created the photo. Gump Stump (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Klickety_Cuffs.png

Invalid derivative, LGPL images cannot be combined with anything other than LGPL ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Handcuffs image is licensed under GFDL, and the Crystal Clear app image is licensed under the LGPL. Both are intended to be re-used, and the specific intention of LGPL is that it should be possible to link to libraries written under the LGPL from programs written under other licenses. Exactly what is the support for the incompatibility claim?

Would it be OK if we could (a) get another handcuffs image under the LGPL multi-license, or (b) get the author of the original image to multi-license it? What about a public-domain image of handcuffs? Would that be acceptable?

Also, please hold off on the deletion for a bit: the image is used in a template which is on very many user pages on en-Wikipedia, and we certainly don't expect to get sued over it; this is purely a technical discussion. I'm quite happy to go and take a photo of handcuffs to replace what I have now, and multi-license it so that we can keep clean, and it would only take a day or two to get everything sorted out. --Slashme (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I still want an explanation of why the LGPL incompatibility exists, but I've changed the background, so now it's definitely not an issue: there's no LGPL-licensed content in here any more, so this deletion request can be closed. --Slashme (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of the GFDL image been away for a week and only pick up on it now. Is an LPGL licence still required or desired? I'd be happy to grant it. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, glad to hear from you! I think the right thing to do is just to design a better background for the picture: if you change your picture to LGPL, it seems that'll make it hard for others to re-use. --Slashme (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, the xcf source file is linked to from the image page, and it is higher resolution. --Slashme (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Andrew_Martin.jpg

Photo source at 20minutos.es is given as "ARCHIVO", which is insufficient specificity Tabercil (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WINTERS_Limited_Partnership_Company_Logo.gif

Wikipedia-only permission. May be PD-textlogo. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Complex_Rzeczka_-_Riese.JPG

I uploaded the new, improved version of the diagram File:Complex Rzeczka - Riese.PNG Les7007 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete The diagram has low quality and does not reflect the present state of the underground. --Les7007 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jirina8.jpg

screencap of copyrighted video. No evidence uploader is the copyright owner of the video Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 3

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

[edit] File:Dentreek_jachthuis_2748.png

i uploaded the wrong picture Hilkemeijer (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dentreek_jachthuis_2748.png

i uploaded the wrong image (filename is not correct). New file with correct name is already uploaded Hilkemeijer (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images uploaded by user:Equusgazing

File:Trouble.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sun-ph2.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Single-stg1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Seabed3 ph7.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sand3 ph1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Pieta-writism.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Passover.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Noise-ph1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Naitivity.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Murder-ph5.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Murder2-ph5.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Mingle.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Mc cohan.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Marilyn-ph8.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Marilyn.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Love story.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Idea.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Gohome.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Double.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Dancing-ph4.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Crucification.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Climbing3-ph3.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Chair1-ph2.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:BirdsII Ph4.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Afterall.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Three dimension.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Swimmer.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Tree phase1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Clear sky.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Cliff2 phase1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Horse phase1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sailing phase1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sailing chinese.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sailing russian.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sailing french.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sailing arabic.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Writism2.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Writism1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Nonsense images and not sourced properly, no encyclopedic value, outside of project scope. see:COM:PS ■ MMXX^talk 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Is there any encyclopedic value in these images? The resolutions are all small and there is no metadata. I'm not sure if the uploader is the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Many of these images are in use. However the page they in use on is marked for deletion for promoting a neologism. If that deletion goes though, then those images with no further use should be deleted. --Simonxag (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Link FA

Because we're not a Wikipedia. This template is completely pointless. A bot was suppose to be making use of it but I don't see that happening. It wouldn't work either as en.wp is a much better central interwiki update location right now. They always have the most iw links. --Rocket000 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kept. It seems to be used here. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reopening. Yes, the template is currently used 8 times, but:

These uses can easily be removed, or if that's not possible it's also possible to tag the template with {{deprecated}} and delete it once all transclusions have been removed.
There are no equivalents for Featured articles on Commons. Featured galleries seem to have been planned once, but no one has really done anything there.
The template wouldn't even work anyway, since the code isn't in MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js.
We don't have any bot who regularly updates these templates like for example on de.wikipedia. Otherwise, the transclusions of this template will remain outdated.

Due to these reasons, I reopen this DR. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Edwikiimg.jpg

Out of scope. Personal photograph of non-notable person. Multixfer (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep He's an author, maybe not the world's most famous, but his book's on Amazon [7]. As picture is high quality and the camera info is included, I don't think we should doubt the license. --Simonxag (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note his article on en-wiki was deleted for lack of notability, so the image may not have much use (it's currently unused). Multixfer (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete for lack of OTRS permission. Image is found in various places on the web. Wknight94 ^talk 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 4

[edit] File:La_reproduction_des_chameaux.jpg

I really don't understand how it can be in scope. Eusebius (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral: Hmm! It might be a cartoon targeted for children. Its hard to say if this should be deleted though it might be slightly out of scope. But then we are mostly adults here and young children might have a different view. This can be the uploader's work and can be catalogued under cartoons. Children may like it. Its hard to say. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Non, vous pouvez supprimer celle-ci, elle ne me sert à rien Jerem115 (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Maybe its better to delete just to be safe. No guarantee it is not a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Guatemala 10 centavo.jpg

Discussion on the FA nom for Quirigua on the English wikipedia highlighted the uncertain copyright status of this image. --Simon Burchell (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Istanbul_collage.jpg

Unsourced collage ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

¿? Clearly sourced... but is the collage useful? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's from me, may be deleted, off course. --Wetwassermann (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sinclair_jones.jpg

I strongly doubt this is own work Huib talk 15:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Watermarked - does it say http://www.capitano.com ? - defunct site /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vereinswappen Münster FC wiki.jpg

Redundand to and available in higher resolution at File:Vereinswappen Muenster FC.jpg. --STBR (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PracaLiberdade-1.jpg

O próprio editor declara que a imagem pertence ao "Governo de Minas Gerais", portanto ele não tem direitos sobre ela. Yanguas (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation: The uploader declares that the rights of the image belongs to "Governo de Minas Gerais" so he/she does not have any rights over the image — translated by Dferg.

Delete Per uploader's request; probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cairo_Opera_1.jpg

This file was nominated for speedy deletion, but I changed it in a normal request. The original reason was This file is a copyright violation because no proof that the uploader owns the copyright, original uploader stopped editing two years ago and the image was transfered to Commons wia File upload bot, the image is of low quality and seems to be a photo scan with no publication date or any more info. Huib talk 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Building destroyed in 1971 - can be kept with {{PD-Egypt}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay! that kind of input is what I was looking for :) Huib talk 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well but the publication date isn't stated. This is the main reason why we can't import images from http://nasser.bibalex.org/ . It could have been recently published or something....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Sadly I can't see that we can keep this image in good faith unless uploader took the image himself. It must be published before 1981 to be PD? I looked at the uploaders talk page and other images was deleted because of lacking source etc. I can't see that moving a badly sourced image to Commons should change the result. --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately delete then. Gryffindor (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Brunabal

[edit] September 5

[edit] File:Philadelphia Liberty Medal.png

The probability that this medal was created by a US federal employee is scarce because its first owner is believed to have been the Philadelphia Foundation, a non profit charity --Teofilo (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Also: no source for the photo, author info is dubious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete No clear source for the photo. Don't believe the uploader is the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment It has been almost three years since that image was uploaded. I pulled it off the NARA site, but the page has disappeared in the intervening years. I also corrected the image sourcing. Evrik (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Derivatives of modern works in Category:Nordrhein-Westfalen-Tag 2008 Wuppertal

File:NRWTag W Elberfeld 35 ies.jpg (formal deletion request)

(non formal deletion request [no {{delete}} template added yet]

)

"28 bis 31 August" (File:NRWTag W Elberfeld 35 ies.jpg), also nicht bleibend. Keine Panoramafreiheit. Siehe COM:FOP#Germany.

Teofilo (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Erstens heißt es nicht "28 bis 31 August", sondern "29 bis 31 August". Zweitens handelt es sich bei den Daten nicht um die Ablauffrist des Bildes, sondern um Daten eines Festes. Drittens macht es keinerlei Sinn, die Daten eines Festes dadurch zu verheimlichen, dass Bilder mit einem irgendwie erkennbaren Datum einfach zensiert / gelöscht werden. Viertens bedeutet das Nichtzutreffen eines einzelnen Paragraphen (wemnn es denn so wäre!) noch lange nicht den Verlust der Panoramafreiheit. (Nach dieser verqueren Logik müssten ja auch alle Menschen als Mörder betrachtet werden, die nicht für alle vorgekommenen Fälle ein Alibi vorweisen können!) Fünftens ist § 59 sehr dehnfähig. Tatsache ist ja nun, dass eben kaum etwas "permanently located" ist und sich ständig etwas ändert. Sechstens sind das Logo des NRW-Tages und damit zusammenhängende Dinge (Plakate...) von der Stadt Wuppertal und der Landesregierung NRW ausdrücklich zur Weiterverbreitung herausgegeben worden. Es gibt somit keine Verletzung des Copyrights und somit auch keinen Grund, die Panoramafreiheit anzuzweifeln. Siebtens sind z.B. (fast) alle Briefmarken mit einem Datum versehen. Wenn der hier vorgebrachte Grund zur Löschung tatsächlich zuträfe, müssten (fast) alle Abbildungen von Briefmarken auch gelöscht werden. Insgesamt halte ich den Löschantrag für groben Unfug. -- Ies (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hier noch Zusatzinformation: Das beanstandete Logo zum Download. "Hier finden Sie unsere Dateien, die Sie gerne für Ihre Publikationen nutzen können". Könnte dieser unsinnige Löschantrag damit bitte mal beendet werden? -- Ies (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ja das stimmt, es war "29 bis 31 August" nicht "28 bis 31 August". Sonst glaube ich immer das wir File:NRWTag W Elberfeld 35 ies.jpg nicht unter Panoramafreiheit aufhalten können. "Hier finden Sie unsere Dateien, die Sie gerne für Ihre Publikationen nutzen können" heisst dass du die Dateien für deine eigene Publikation nutzen kannst. Das bedeutet nicht dass du die Dateien bearbeiten kannst. Das sind also keine freie Dateien. Das ist nicht frei genug für Commons. Teofilo (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The photo of the map is definitely a derivative work for which there is no FOP. Also images like File:NRWTag W Sonnborn 30 ies.jpg would require permission by authors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PQuinnIllinois.jpg

This file is was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason: The flickr photo has been deleted, hence this is likely a copyright violation, since the speedy is based on a doubt I think we need communety input before we keep of delete. Huib talk 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per File talk:PQuinnIllinois.jpg - license is irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The site says "The above image is approved to be used in public for identification of Lt Governor Pat Quinn." We went almost 18 months of bullshit with Kremlin.ru images because the permissions did not explicitly allow for modification, etc. This is exactly the same, the permission is not specific enough and hence it does not belong on Commons as is. --russavia (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was on flickr with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license. That is good enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be good enough if there was reason to assume that the Flickr account user is actually the copyright holder. From discussion on the image page it seems there is reason to doubt that. Infrogmation (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment This could be kept conditionally per Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140) which says, "records in possession of public agencies may be accessed by the public upon written request. Pursuant to 5 ILCS 140, Section 2 ( c ), a public record is any records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared, or having been or being used, received, possessed or under the control of any public body." With that being said permission information can be found at the Illinois FOIA website and I figure some agreement could possibly be reached for an OTRS ticket. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Files uploaded by Orage 100

File:World Trade.jpg
File:1World Trade.JPG (and duplicates File:World Trade center11.jpg and File:One world trade center.JPG)
File:Brume Sur Montréal.jpg
File:Mont Royal100.jpg

Orage 100 (talk · contributions) has uploaded multiple copyright violations taken from various websites, and has also taken credit for works by other Commons users. I haven't been able to find the true sources of the four above, but I'm very disinclined to believe that the uploader's authorship claims are any more true than for their other uploads. Additionally, I'm quite sure the uploader did not create the model in File:World Trade.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete too many questions on copyright status. They are likely non-free images --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ghanatroops.jpg

No source is stated that verifies that this image is in the public domain. Low image resolution and the lack of EXIF data indicates copyright violation. High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DaveLimSirius-full.jpg

No indication as to why David Lim, a police officer and supposed both subject and author of the photo would be an employee of the US Federal Government. Police officers are typically not federal employees in the US. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mowlogo.jpg

promotional material, not used, not in COM:SCOPE Avron (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Only used as promotional material on en:User talk:Masters of War. User's only contribution is creating a page with promotional material. Pruneau^talk 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RCDE.JPG

Close up of a copyrighted work. I'm not sure whether the free of panorama in Spain can allow us to have this picture. The uploader claims that since it's on a public place, it should be kept. Link to the FOP COM:FOP#Spain Alhen .::··¨ 13:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Permanently in a public place. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I´m the user who uploaded the file. As you can see in the following picture: [8]. The logo is painted on the outside wall of the stadium, so as Pieter Kuiper said it is permanently in a public space. --elemaki (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I was the first user that think it could be illegal, but after reading the explanation I think that it could keep here. I was confused by the temporallity of other similar images and their location. --Millars (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete The issue here is that the Spanish FOP is a little bit tricky and is strongly limited by Article 40bis. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This does not abolish FOP in Spain. There are other countries with similar restrictions. For example, COM:FOP#The Netherlands limits the number of works one can reproduce. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:I_want_you_to_die_for_Israel.jpg

I don't think that this work was done by the Flickr user. Eusebius (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is based on a well-known work that is in the public domain: File:Uncle_Sam_(pointing_finger).jpg, so I see no reason to delete this (provided that this image is within the scope of Commons and that the source/author information is adjusted. 80.56.176.171 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have modified the image on the assumption that 1) the Flickr user added the caption himself and 2) the caption in itself did not generate new copyright. I'd be ok with a

Keep (at least regarding copyright). Maybe the restoration of the CC-BY license could be considered, but anyway I still think that the Flickr user grabbed the picture from somewhere else. --Eusebius (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown that his is within project scope. CheckUsage finds no use in Wikimedia. The original image by James Montgomery Flagg is public domain, but I don't see the need to have a seperate image with plain text as part of the jpg; why not just add a caption to File:Uncle_Sam_(pointing_finger).jpg or one of the other versions at Category:I want you for the U.S. Army nearest recruiting station? Infrogmation (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete As it's not being used, there's no reason not to just use a caption with the original image as per Infrogmation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nachtjagd_Dornier_Do217J2.jpg

not "own work" as stated Avron (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Its a scan. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nachtjagd_Fw_189.jpg

not "own work" as stated Avron (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gomez.jpg

Looks like old photo from printed reproduction in newspaper or magazine; I doubt uploader is the author and copyright holder. --Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete} It could very well be PD. But without a clear verifiable source, we cannot be sure. Its not own work certainly. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep en:Máximo Gómez died 1905. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Obwód_witebski_narody.png

The graphics does not work as I was planned, please delete it. Bladyniec (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want this image to be deleted? It works fine. For example, here :) — Wizardist (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Doyle.jpg

There is no evidence that the governor's website licences under the licences stated russavia (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Governor_Mark_Sanford_Jobs_and_Growth_Tour.jpg

We had a similar situation with Template:Kremlin.ru photos, in that this permission on the website only allows for publication. It doesn't explicitly state that modifications, etc are allowed, hence it is not suitable for commons as is. russavia (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ed_Rendell.jpg

There is no evidence that this photo has been licenced under a CC licence russavia (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of GTorre

File:MontePetrella2.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Semprevisa-01.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Simbruini.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

The images had been originally uploaded on it.wp and released under cc-by-nc-nd and were eventually deleted as not compliant with the EDP. In the meantime they were copied by someone else on en.wp and licensed wrongly as cc-by-2.5 - finally they were transwikied on commons. The author has just contacted me on it.wp (it:Discussioni utente:Cruccone#Licenze errate saying that he has never authorised the license change and therefore asking for the images to be deleted. I can confirm that the images were never licensed as cc-by-2.5 on it.wp, but I have no access to the history on en.wp. Cruccone (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CapitalDistrict.png

This image is not correct; the correct representation of this area can be seen here (for more information, please read the article on the Capital District. I moved this image to Commons so User:ZooFari could use it as a starting point in creating of File:Map of New York highlighting Capital District.svg. It had originally been on Wikipedia, representing the area. upstate NYer 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep A Licence is a licence, you know they own you. I like it, the smaller version uses less memory. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

@UpstateNYer, you don't need to take you know they own you serious, as this user just wants to make a point as he is angry about something unrelated to this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But what this image represents is factually incorrect; I think that's a pretty good reason for deletion. upstate NYer 02:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not in use, has served its purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CapitalDistrictBadEdit.png

This is a much lesser-quality version of File:Map of New York highlighting Capital District.svg, which supersedes it. I only created this so User:ZooFari would know how I wanted the vector version to look. Quality is poor and a png can easily be gotten from the SVG version already used. upstate NYer 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep A Licence is a licence, you know they own you. I like it, the smaller version uses less memory. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "A license is a license, you know they own you." Also, while this isn't Wikipedia, I still think WP:ILIKEIT isn't really a good reason for keep. This image looks like crap due to my insertion of colors (note the white borders between the black lines and pink, but only in the counties I changed). Overall this has no use, and is poor quality (and easily replaceable considering how many SVG artists I work with on a regular basis). If this ever ended up in an article again, I would be swift to remove it. upstate NYer 02:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@UpstateNYer, you don't need to take you know they own you serious, as this user just wants to make a point as he is angry about something unrelated to this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete If a work is not in use and there's a serious claim that another work can replace it in all circumstances, then it should be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Served its purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blacksnake.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "I, the copyright holder of this image request that it be purged/deleted" to rfd by me. --Túrelio (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per uploader request. Its probably an erroneous upload assuming good faith. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Uploaded to as a question on en:Project:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 August 26#I thought this little black snake was harmless, can someone help ID it?, which led to discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez had changed my !vote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain" means the uploader was the copyright holder. They're not anymore and have no more rights than anybody else to make demands regarding the treatment of this public domain work. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, per LX. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This appears to be a copyright issue. I support deleting this. Lulu989 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit on Commons, funny. Anyway, welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Planet Super-Mars.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. " to rfd by me. --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So then, thanks to you we hosted a copyright violation since January 1st, 2008. --Túrelio (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No particular reason to believe the original statement, as this isn't a photograph. Either ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI did a huge variety of images and the original uploader restrained his pilfering just to that one person for some reason, or he pasted the same text over and over to get his files deleted. I'm going with the later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep A user and his sock. There's no evidence that it's a copyright violation. --Prosfilaes (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete In use only on nominator's user page; private artwork, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Planet 75% Desert Planet.JPG

[edit] September 6

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

[edit] File:Complex_Osówka_-_Riese.JPG

I uploaded the new, improved version of the diagram File:Complex Osówka - Riese.PNG Les7007 (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per good faith uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete The diagram has low quality and does not reflect the present state of the underground. --Les7007 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Per uploader request. Low quality image not used in any Wikimedia project. Alpertron (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TOFdurk-HvB-B19.jpg

Prominently features a copyrighted photo by Robert Mapplethorpe 67.39.251.254 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The President of the ToF Foundation, Durk Dehner in person, allowed to use Mapplethorpe's photo of Tom of Finland for this portrait in front of the foundation's estate. Henning von Berg allowed his picture to be featured for free here at Wiki. (September 19, 2009)

Neither of them owns the copyright to Mapplethorpe's work. This is a copyvio.

Comment: We can put a Gaussian blur over the copyrighted photo and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, the background photo is de minimis. --Kjetil_r 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The background photo is why it was uploaded to Wikipedia in the first place: to supply a photo of the subject for the article about him, without using the fullsize photo. - 99.24.251.105 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  - If so, this photo is clearly a copyvio. I thought the main subject was the person in front. --Kjetil_r 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    - There's an editor who's tried to justify the use of the image by claiming that the guy in front is notable... but, no. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep but crop and/or blur per Jmabel. The photo is currently in several "Tom of Finland" articles and the person in this picture is its co-founder. Wknight94 ^talk 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Donaldson_landscape.jpg

Author has uploaded other images under a similar claim of being his/her own work , but upon research were in fact taken from other websites, these being File:Campus entrance sm.jpg and File:Campus from rear.jpg which originated [9]. I have not found an exact copy of this image on another website but I am suspicious on if this image is really not copyrighted given (a) its professionalism (b) its similarity to [10] which is clearly marked as copyrighted (c) the user’s other uploads suggesting the claim of this being in the public domain is not reliable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ssc2004-20a.jpg

Image requires permission from N.Evans Univ of Texas at Austin. See copyright statement from Spitzer: Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image. 84user (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Aliza-sherman.JPG

Professional studio picture, needs source and permission. Yann (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Could the uploader be the photographer here or is it a copy vio? Its a professional picture and he gives a very specific date for it but it is not clear if this is a copy vio. Does one assume good faith or delete it? Its a tough call. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:2010_SAG_PMap.jpg, File:2010 SAG PN.JPG

Very low quality. Can be replaced by File:South Asian Games participating countries.PNG with no problems. Filipe Ribeiro ^Msg 20:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep In use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment File:2010 SAG PMap.jpg is not used. I replaced File:2010 SAG PN.JPG by File:South Asian Games participating countries.PNG in en-wiki. Three images with the same application, two of them with very low quality. Is this really necessary? Filipe Ribeiro ^Msg 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep File:2010 SAG PN.JPG is released under the {{cc-zero}} Creative Commons CC0 waiver, which makes it "free-er" than the PNG. Uploader has also created File:AAG 2003 PN.jpg, another map in a matching style. Quality alone is not a reason for deletion. -84user (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 7

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BbCl4.png

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

[edit] File:NOKIA E63.gif

Picture not coming out the way required. Wasted effort. --Amog |^Talk 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader'srequest, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wir_wollen_sein_ein_einzig_Volk_von_Brüdern_red.jpg

Permission ~Lukas talk 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Weather_Ship_Cumulus.jpg

The given information text does not state any CC licence, it is just a interpretation by the uploader. Licence status is unclear with the text (derivation allowed? Commercial use?) D.W. (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation of the uploader. All text and images on the KNMI site are free to use, for commercial and non commercial use. That's why a lot of text from the KNMI site is used on the Dutch Wikipedia for a long time. The same can be applied to images. If you don't understand this, that's your problem. I cancel this amateurish deletion request. --.....jeroencommons ..... 17:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Give any link where I can read CC licence, a CC licence is more than the short deed, see this. You don´t know if they agree to this, even if the meaning of freedom is very similar.--D.W. (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not originally CC, it's public domain, with the question to provide a back-link to the KNMI. Public domain can be re-licensed to an appropriate license, like I and many others on the Dutch Wikipedia did. Is this do difficult to understand? I'm not going to argue about this again and again. --.....jeroencommons ..... 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Because of the the short text on description page you consider it public domain or what? Your idea of "relicencing" makes no sense for me. Without any better reference as "dutch wikipedia folks" I couldn´t believe you... again and again...--D.W. (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can compare this with NASA material. If you like to question this I welcome you to start a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. BTW: It's actually not relicencing, becauyse PD is not a license. --.....jeroencommons ..... 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the past it was clear that the information from KNMI is free to use and many users have used this information. At the moment looking at the website of the KNMI they state that every information of the site may be copied and used freely if the source (KNMI) is mentioned. That is current, in the past the website was changed. Romaine (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Forrestjunky is going to contact the knmi to clear this up. We should wait for the response.Multichill (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Under any case, the CC license for this particular image is incorrect. It should be using the license Template:Attribution. TheDJ (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. The photo is licensed under a clause for {{Attribution}} to KNMI. Sv1xv (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Several photos of PK1913

I had to move these from Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09/06, so look there for older history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please delete theis files:

I will take the photographs for same but batter than now.PK1913 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep You can upload new versions on the same file page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

- He's done that on File:FJU LA08.jpg and File:FJU MD07.jpg and was reverted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but I hope delete now.PK1913 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep it's easier not to delete. I'm not even sure they would be uploaded with new versions, as many of them aren't static images. There's no way to replicate File:NSYSU begins 00.JPG, for example. Once there are new pictures, it's possible these could be deleted, and several of them it wouldn't be Lastly, the fact that you uploaded a much smaller version of that image over it doesn't inspire me with confidence, nor does the fact that you uploaded completely dissimilar images over old ones a couple times.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? I'm thesis files uploader, why can not delete?140.117.193.179 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

- They may give you a courtesy deletion, but there's no right to be deleted from the commons; you gave us a free license to host the file, and we accepted. I think you do much better had you found someone who spoke Chinese and English as a mediator; we would respond better if you were clear about why you want these images deleted, and why you don't feel it can wait until there's replacements. They could have helped you do a correct deletion request, too.

- There's certain of these that could be deleted; File:NSYSU traffic01.JPG is a picture of a poster (I don't know about FOP in China, but it would have to be pretty broad to include this), without specific context or a botanical claim, File:FJU LA03.jpg probably falls outside of the educational goals of Wikimedia Commons, File:FJU Religion04.jpg is pretty fuzzy to stand without a clear justification, File:FJU YP03.jpg has a better FOP claim then traffic01, but still has painting and writing in the picture, and File:NSYSU campus day04.JPG also probably fails the educational goals.

- I love File:FJU MD07.jpg however, as it reminds how homogenous our world is in some ways nowadays, as I could walk down that corridor in an American university without blinking. File:FJU LA08.jpg is a decent wide-spread shot of a university/city, and File:NSYSU begins 00.JPG is a good (and basically irreplacable) shot of an opening day, though it could use for better description.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Possible_NWLLR_routes.jpg

This image seems to have been copied from this website:http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/09.01.16.brent_cross_presentation.pdf Grim23 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this version is not in that file (which is a PowerPoint file saved as a PDF), or on that web site, or on any other web site.

It is a fresh PDF file, generated from the original in Microsoft Publisher specifically for Wikipedia, and it was drawn from scratch in early 2008, and added to since.

There are various slightly different versions, used for campaigning by individuals in various parts of Barnet, in other London boroughs (Brent, Harrow, Ealing, Hllingdon, Enfield, Haringey and Camden), and at meetings such as a 'Mayor-Boris-Johnson-Meets-the-People' event in Westminster Conference Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jdudding (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The file only exists on one computer, and it has been printed directly to a connected colour (color) laser printer hundreds of times. The 'London Group of the Campaign for Better Transport' is a voluntary group of individuals in London, that owns no premises, property, computers, computer files, designs, or copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (first IP edited the posting of User:Jdudding) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.212.40 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (second IP edited the posting of the first IP)

The websites terms and conditions[[11]] reads "This site is owned and operated by Campaign for Better Transport. The material on this site is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, or distribute in any way any material from this site including code, software and the Campaign for Better Transport logo except as otherwise detailed. You may download material from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. " btw to sign and date your comments type ~~~~ Grim23 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I hadn't noticed that. Anyway, since the graphic is not on the web site, I assume you agree that nothing has been downloaded from the web site, and that it therefore doesn't apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

cAN'T THE FILE GO BACK TO NORMAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.115.158 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing. I have added {{unsigned}} to this discussion to help understand who wrote what. The route part of File:Possible NWLLR routes.jpg above appears to match the image in document Brent Cross railway: maps linked from [12]. That PDF document has timestamps created: 2008-02-11 and modified 2008-02-19 and contains the image in what appears to be a vetorised format - it is sharp at all zoom levels. The image in [13] appears to be a rasterised and lossily converted derivative of the 2008 February image. The image in Commons contains a higher quality rasterised version of the route map with additional elements. User:Jdudding, are you claiming to have created all elements of the image, both the route map and inset images? If yes, you can send a email as described in Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org, and then place {{Otrs pending}} on the image page. If not, is there a free license or permission available from the creators of those elements? -84user (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brasileiras_na_Serra_da_Canastra.jpg

Personal photo - out of project scope. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Good image in Category:Serra da Canastra. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Its the only image by the uploader and it is a personal photo. How can we trust the uploader is the copyright owner in this situation? There should be a few more photos at least. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NeutralCopyright concerns are copyright paranoia: there is no actual evidence at all that this is a copyvio. However the scenery (which is the useful part of the picture) is all blurred. Only the photographer's friends are in focus. --Simonxag (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Letov_S-231.jpg

User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Letov_S-31.jpg

User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete creator unkown--MartinS (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mitsubishi_Ki-67_Hiryu.jpg

User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 8

[edit] Images by User:GabrielVelasquez

With reference to all of these images uploaded by GabrielVelasquez and now nominated for deletion by the same user, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GabrielVelasquez&oldid=28287642 (which he's now blanked). Apparently he was banned on en-wiki and is trying to get all his images removed; he's now changed his story at least once about why they should be removed. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Idiot,~~ I am not banned at wikipedia, get your ~~sorry ass~~ story straight. It's obvious I can edit as I like there: WHY would they ban me after I retired. Just another reason not to take these ~~fools~~ sites seriously, anyone can say any falsehood claiming it's true. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all of these deletion requests but since this person is now saying he did not have the right to do what he did, the images ought to be deleted as copyright violations. It is not a question of whether a licence can be revoked. He can't grant rights over an image he doesn't have the right to give. It is also quite clear that he purported to have that right when he uploaded them. Saying he used the wrong template could account for one or two uploads, but not all of these. Since he has admitted his own copyright violation, his admission ought to be taken at face value. I am unfamiliar with the process but surely if someone uploads images and purports to grant licences he has no right to grant, his user privileges should be reviewed. --KenWalker (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Once the images I added are removed I don't plan to upload or edit here at all any more. I'm remaining here only to see them deleted. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete All the images he says are copyvios. Either he is honest, in which case they are copyvios, or he is not honest, in which case we should not believe any of his claims to be the creator or copyright holder of images. --Simonxag (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep If we take the above tactic, anyone can get their files deleted at any time. Since no one has made a credible claim that they're copyvios, I see no reason to delete them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is true: anyone could use this tactic, but anyone would not. We don't assume good faith to the same extent that the Wikipedia does, but ultimately we do rely on people telling the truth. Even OTRS relies on the truthfullness of the claims made by email. Assuming these copyvio claims are false only leads to a strong suspicion that they are true. --Simonxag (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They're absurd on the face of them; he's talking about a camera in non-photographic pictures. If he wants to point us to the originals of these works, it would be trivial then to verify his claim. I just seriously hate rewarding people who act badly enough with what they want.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Solstice-Equinox Insolation.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: As it happens, this isn't a photo, so owning or not owning a camera is irrelevant. (moved the rest of my remark to Commons:Deletion requests/Images by GabrielVelasquez.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete unused and claimed as a copyright violation by uploader. --Simonxag (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete This does not seem correct anyway. The curves for the equinoxes should be equal, so the large difference between the curves for March and for September is not expected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Missing_Star_masses_by_Kepler_3rd_Law.jpg

this data should be represented as, well, data, not a jpeg picture of a table. Plrk (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is used on a talk page, in a discussion. Could be moved to enwp and deleted here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Would this be a copyvio of Excel or whatever program is used, since it is a screenshot? Scapler (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it contains very little of the program user interface (only column and row numbers), the content and formating of the cells are decided by the user. Sv1xv (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Since it is actually used, it should be kept. It shouldn't be moved to enwp as it is actually free. I don't think it is a copyvio of the program used as no distinct features of any spreadsheet application is shown (and the features shown are surely PD-simple) Plrk (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But the image is not educationally useful. Its only use is in that particular discussion on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's more use than can be argued for most images on commons, I'd say. But then again, it is an archived discussion over long ago - deleting it wouldn't hurt, either. Plrk (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Habitable Planet Orbit Eccentricities.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not in use, not encyclopedically useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:New north pole full and legend.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not in use, does not seem useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Average monthly Insolation to 15 deg N S.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Camera? This isn't a photo. If you're going to lie, at least put some effort into it. Also, en:Wikipedia:No legal threats. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. You have a policy that says you have to respect copyright laws, mentioning those laws is not a legal threat, what a dumb comment. Lulu989 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:S7301097.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Uploader's request, but in use; license is not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:S7300921.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - If you know ot the author and source - why did you upload it as "own work" and "author=Gabriel D. Velasquez"? --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep In use, license cannot be revoked at will. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Waterton National Park Red Rock Canyon .JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Uploader's request, but in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:S7300646.JPG

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use; license cannot be revoked at will. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:28gosslings-DSCN4348.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:28gosslings-DSCN4356.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gliese 581 c Temperatures.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Planet Terrestrial Earth Animated.gif

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Planet Carbon Aluminum Sphere Earth-Like Lt.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Not even a picture taken with a camera, the copyvio claim is dubious. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Planet Gas Dwarf Animated.gif

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Not even a picture taken with a camera, so the copyvio claim is absurd. –Tryphon ^☂ 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Habitable Moon 2.0.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed/purged/deleted, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother." to rfd by me. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. This is not even a picture taken with a camera, so the copyvio claim is absurd. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Planet 75% Desert Planet.JPG

[edit] File:SORIANA_SANTA_ROSA.JPG

The permission statement suggests only {{noncommercial}} is allowed, which contradicts the free license. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another photos of this same place and they don't have this advice...

It's the last time that I upload photos for this page... You are so estrict.

--BettasGDL (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This comment does not sound like this is own work. Terrible quality anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Georg_Freiherr_von_Rheinbaben.jpg

Photo is not showing Georg von Rheinbaben but Werner von Rheinbaben of whom a portrait is availabe already. Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Rename perhaps, the other portrait in Category:Werner von Rheinbaben is not the same. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images regarding painter Marie Howet

This painter lived from 1897-1984, meaning that her works are not in the PD.

Paintings:

Photographs:

File:Marie Howet en broer.jpg (PD-Art but should perhaps be PD-Old as it is not a picture of an artwork) Website states © KIKIRPA - Brussel 2001 , but it looks as though the image could have been taken more than 70 years ago, although date of publication is unknown.

File:Marie Howet.jpg (PD-Art but should perhaps be PD-Old as it is not a picture of an artwork.) Taken from a 1953 book, if that was the first publication, the photograph might still be copyrighted, although it looks as though the image could have been taken more than 70 years ago.

-- Deadstar (msg) 09:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Commons can't keep it here. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The photos can probably be kept if they are anonymous, because publication rights do not last that long. If they were published 1953 without the name of a photographer, they should be free now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RonaeleManorGardenFront.jpg

This photo is from Frances Loeb Library, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University. Although many of these images were created by Harvard staff, many others were not. According to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/landscape/restrictions.html As such, even though Loeb Library is unaware of restrictions, these images may be copyrighted. The work is a copyright orphan and currently cannot be used. TheDJ (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 075.jpg

Poor resolition and colour quality, redundant – see File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Child with a whip.jpg & File:Renoir,_Pierre-Auguste_-_Boy_with_a_Whip.jpg, even bad title & categorization – it's a boy, not a girl – read here.

Info: Malformed deletion request fixed on behalf of Gumruch. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Category is easy to fix. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Autotravel

Plz, see previous discussion - Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Autotravel. The template was kept because of OTRS-permission only. But respective ticket has been recently reviewed and abolished by OTRS-user ru:User:Ilya Voyager. Alex Spade (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this. Initial permission text, which goes back to 2007, is not very clear (actually, it's a comment on old website's FAQ), and does not contain explicit statement that the person who give the permission (site admin) have all necessary rights to do so (site admin is not the author of the photos on this site, it's a public upload site). Moreover, soon after this ticket was accepted, site administration changed its policy (see http://autotravel.ru/phalbum.php), and now this policy states, that users of that site give the administration some set of rights on the photos, which is very limited and is not compatible with free art definition. (E.g. the usage is allowed only in certain context, no explicit permission to commercial usage, only some types of modification are allowed and so on.) So now the administration of the site definitely does not have rights which are needed to publish these photos under free license. I asked for additional comments, and they confirmed that e.g. they do not give a permission for arbitrary commercial usage. So I believe this permission is completely invalid, and the template (as well as all images which used it) should be deleted. Ilya Voyager (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Russian is limited (or absent), but my interpretation of

Использование представленного на сайте или полученного в результате указанных в предыдущем пункте технических операций изображения в любом (в том числе коммерческом) электронном тексте и/или гипертексте (в том числе на любом другом сайте Интернет), при условии одновременного размещения в этом тексте (гипертексте) видимой и работающей ссылки (html link) на сайт происхождения (autotravel.org.ru)

and Google's "translation" to English seem to somewhat agree. I interpret the deal as follows: the photographer uploads a (possibly, even probably) lossfully compressed image, autotravel may place the image anywhere on its website. A limited set of operations on the image is permitted (change the size, colour, and/or shape of the image; delete the EXIF-date from it; retouch, crop, rotate, color change, and/or republish it) to autotravel and its visitors. If I'm not mistaken (but I probably am mistaken), that is almost the same deal as commons gives: the artist allows a limited set of actions, including republishing, on a (possible reduced) image and gets exposure/advertizing; the website gets almost no control over the content, but it gets more content; the visitor has lots of images to choose from, may even edit and republish them and can easily contact the photographer if needed. A fairly good, but not excellent deal for all. Mostly good for the visitor, but on the Internet one doesn't earn money without (lots of) visitors. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning the "money question", you made a mistake about a limiting set of operations. Commons allow everyone to do almost everything with an image - for example, cut it in two parts and rejoin them with third image between. Commons allow everyone to create new art based on (derived from) source image. But such operations are not "technical". I.e. commons allow non-technical modifications to source image, and autotravel does not. In terms of CC license, autotravel is like CC-BY-ND, where ND are not compatible with Commons policy. vlsergey (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could very well be right about ND, but that would make the permission unusable for commons, the permission would still be valid. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, we don't need or even want to change File:Memorial to keyboard.jpg, newer pictures would be welcome, but for a lot of pictures CC-BY-ND wouldn't be bad (if derivatives would need to use another name, the ND would be less needed). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ND is agains a commons policy. vlsergey (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete the template and images, since OTRS-ticket is invalid. Site public offer is not compatible with Commons licensing policy. vlsergey (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete I already stressed several times that Commons:Deletion requests/Evasion license tags should all be deleted. --rtc (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Logo Europlanetarium.jpg

Corrupt file and if it is the logo of the Europlanetarium in Genk, it's unlikely that this is self made. ---- Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also these files by same uploader, also seems to be corrupt: File:Campagnebeeld Kattevennen.tif and possible duplicate File:Kattevennen.TIF. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The .tif files are not corrupt, but thumbnails are not generated for this file format. I suspect that the uploader Isabelle is Vice President of the planetarium, but this would need confirmation by OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wikimedialogo2 ned.png

depracated, superseded by File:Wikimedianederland-logo.png --Dedalus (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 9

[edit] File:CastagnaroCanal1603.JPG

Bad crop of an image found elsewhere, now on commons: File:Polesine.jpg. Going to use the other. Achillu (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 10

[edit] File:Fannie_Hurst1.jpg

This image is probably {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but there is no way to be sure unfortunately. TheDJ (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment LoC has a note: "J9143 U.S. Copyright Office." Does not that help? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It means that it was at one time registered. If between 1923 and 1963, that registration will last 28 years, and with renewel another 28 years. However, copyrights in works registered or pub- lished between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, have an automatic renewal for a full 95-year term of protection. Since we don't know when the image was published, we cannot know wether or not it's copyrighted. TheDJ (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The LoC page says it was registered with 1931 as the starting year. So, the renewal would have had to be in 1958 or 1959. Unfortunately I don't think the visual art renewal records are online for easy searching. Though the "J" prefix may mean something else... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BishopMainSt1_copy.jpg

Bad Name Bigfork (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Reupload under a better name and speedy delete this with this tag: {{bad name|Correct name}} --Simonxag (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Complex Włodarz - Riese.JPG

I uploaded the new, improved version of the diagram File:Complex Włodarz - Riese.PNG --Les7007 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete The diagram has low quality and does not reflect the present state of the underground. --Les7007 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] File:Eudoxus.jpg

Incorrectly named; this is a picture of Ptolemy, not Eudoxus who lived hundreds of years prior. See Commons:Village pump#Guess who. There is a better-named duplicate at File:Ptolemy Thevet 1584.g.png (it was made by an artist named Thevet in a 1584 book, and labeled as being of Ptolemy). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete not Eudoxus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:John_Steinbeck_1962.jpg

Converting from speedy. This image has been discussed at Commons talk:Licensing#Steinbeck_image; it is claimed as copyrighted at the source. The issue is if it is considered a "photographic picture" or an artistic "photographic work" according to Swedish copyright law; if the former then copyright expired in 1988, was not restored when Sweden updated its terms in 1994, and was not restored by the URAA in 1996. (Although, since Sweden did have copyright relations at the time, it is possible it was registered for U.S. copyright which would mean the U.S. copyright could still be valid.) If it is a "photographic work", then it is copyright until 70 years after the death of the (unmentioned) author, which has not passed even if it is anonymous. There are definitely artistic elements to this photo, so it is very possible to argue that way. I don't know of any real guidelines on the matter which are available... treatment is very different even among countries which have a clause like this in their copyright law, so even if someone feels "sure" on the matter given experiences in another country, those aren't directly applicable. However, given the uncertainty, the claim of copyright at the source, to me it seems best to be cautious and delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep First of all, the Nobel foundation allows free use of their portraits of the Nobel prize winners. This may not free enough for commons (no permission for derivatives), but it is good to keep in mind. Second, the Nordic countries had and still have a separate protection for all photography (yes, including photos of paintings - commons is not very good at respecting that, the Swedish law is completely disregarded here). This separate protection was meant for professional photos: photojournalism, commercial photography for advertising etcetera, and run-of-the-mill portraits. Only photographic works had the Bern Treaty protection for works of art. Now, this is just a professionally done portrait. It is not signed, the photographer is not even mentioned, so there is no artist, and it is not an artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment If that was a Danish photograph, I would say it is a photographic work. Sweden has a very similar copyright law, but it might be interpreted different by Swedish courts. Pieter on the other hand seems to neglect full copyright in Sweden, Finland and Denmark equally (see for example [14] where he claims that a film is not a work of art). His claim that only very few signed photos are works seems to be invented self-invented. At least copyright experts in Denmark disagree (see two quotes from books on copyright here: [15]).

First: you are misrepresenting what I wrote about film - totally. And it is a fact that photographic works were supposed to be few - that is why separate laws were introduced to protect them. It is the same with music: a recording of a performance by Von Karajan is not an artistic work. Now, rarely a photograph could be considered to have artistic or scientific value. That would be the kind of works displayed in museums, or sold in rare editions, numbered, and with the artist's signature. (I am not inventing this, it comes from Swedish tax legislation, which has different tariffs for artists and for other workers). This photo of Steinbeck is well focused, the lighting is carefully chosen to match the subject, but that is no different from a professional photo of a cabbage. If the Nobel foundation had commissioned a different photographer, a similar result would have been obtained. So this lacks originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When talking about "facts": Citation needed and please add this to the discussion page of the relevant templates. BTW: A photo of cabbage is also a work as soon the photographer has made thoughts about lightning, background, angle etc (that's originality). Are cabbage photos not protected in the Netherlands? Nillerdk (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The old stuff (1960's) is not on line and not easily accessible for me. As a reference for photographic works being rare according to Nordic standards, the committee that prepared the revision of Swedish copyright legislation quoted a Norwegian committee: "profesjonel dyktighet er ikke nok", which means that only a small number of photographs attains the status of a work (text in Swedish). And a photo of a cabbage for a seed catalogue or something would be photography for advertising, which is mentioned in the reports preparing the 1960 law as an example of photographic images (Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv II 1961 s. 108). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rough translation of the Norwegian: "professional skill is not enough". I think that the Nobel foundation wanted a good portrait, not a work of art, and that the photographer understood that and was paid accordingly. If they wanted a work of art they would have published the name of the artist, wouldn't they? --LPfi (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This image does not fit the requirement of a photographic work (fotografiska verk) for the following reasons;

a) The photographer did not die before January 1, 1944, (Obviously he did not if the image was taken in 1962)

b) The photographer is not known, and we do not know if he can be traced, however the image was not created before January 1, 1944. (Again obviously it was not crated before 1944)

Therefore the question becomes; is it a public domain image for a photographic picture (fotografiska bilder), such as images of the press, the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969 (transitional regulations 1994).

For this to be an image of the press it's source must show that if no photographer is named. AP, UPI and any other press association would have to claim the image for that clause of public domain to be proved or it would have to be both untraceable and an obvious simple photographic picture. A picture is an image that depicts a subject in a true setting at a moment in time, whether or not the subject is aware. A Photographic work is any image that required, advance planning by both the photographer and the subject. Professional Portraits fall under this definition. This is not a moment in time, but a clearly arranged portrait.

It's source is a private foundation which claims copyright of all images. The Nobel foundation does not allow images to be used freely but to be used free of charge with a copyright from the foundation REQUIRED with use.

Nobel Copyright claim from source of image;

Copyrights

Everything, including but not limited to the articles, texts, photographs, images, data, files, audio and video clips, illustrations, designs, educational games and documentation in whole or in part (the "Content") which appears on the Site is either proprietary to Nobel Web or used in accordance with applicable law or third party consents.

You may not reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, modify, perform, adapt, generate derivative works or otherwise use the Content without prior written permission – if not expressly stated elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions of Use.

The following listed copyright protected material: photos of the Laureates, other photos, the Nobel Diplomas, the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies – of which the Nobel Foundation is the proprietor – and the Nobel Posters and the Swedish Nobel Stamps, of which a third party is the holder, are encompassed by special regulations.

Other photos

For uses of other photos, permission from the Nobel Foundation, and in certain cases from the photographer, is required.

If permission is granted "© The Nobel Foundation" and the photographer must be indicated.

The question of artistic merit may be used as EXTRA coverage of the photo copyright....in other words, it's not a matter of being an artistic work or it's public domain...it's an added right in Swedish law concerning photography. (I have already provided the link for this, but since it's not an argument I am not searching for it again)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused. "For this to be an image of the press it's source must show that if no photographer is named." Where do you get this from? "A Photographic work is any image that required, advance planning by both the photographer and the subject. Professional Portraits fall under this definition." And this?

And the last: The question of artistic merit ... EXTRA coverage. ...

Did you read the Swedish law or are you using cites from some other legislation? Earlier you cited a broschyre with an overwiev of legislation conserning new works and images in an argument trying to overturn what other said about transitional regulations. Please use hyperlinks to references for such statements, so that we can check the relevance without extra work.

--LPfi (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The older discussion is now at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 21#Steinbeck_image. He provided a couple links there, but I think they were misinterpreted. Still... this 1995 amendment sure sounds like the copyright term changes *were* made retroactive, reading the transitional provisions at the bottom. If they were, then the photo (even if not a work of art) would be protected until 2013. Am I misreading that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is for "works". The EU thinks that its principle of non-discrimination is more important than the fundamental prohibition against retroactive legislation, and made this a condition for Sweden joining the EU. This is is why the 1944 date in {{PD-Sweden-photo}} is wrong (but the template is protected, and I cannot edit it). But as I read it, the EU-harmonization did not affect the status of photographic images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. A close reading does show they use the phrase "works and photographic pictures" whenever they intend to have a section apply to both types, and "works" alone in other situations -- and the retroactive bit there does seem to use "works" only. The section on photographic pictures also implies that full "copyright" does not apply to some/most photographs; they list the subset of articles which do apply (for 50 years now). So, back to the definition of "picture" vs "work"... did it change upon joining the EU (like Germany's definition did) or did it remain as it was in the 1960s, as described above. If it did not change, then using the above reasoning then this would be a photographic picture. Still uneasy since so few other countries seem to use that dividing line -- but probably mostly because of my U.S.-based views ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I received an E-Mail response from the Nobel Foundation. They have no photographer information, claim the copyright on the image is 70 years from photographers death....but then claim it may be in public domain. Here is the full text, minus all personal information;

Dear ** ******,

The photo was at one time provided to us for general usage. Unfortunately, we do not have any information on who the photographer is.

However, since the copyright expires 70 years after the photographer has died, according to Swedish law, it is rather possible that the photo is now public domain.

Please don't hesitate to get back to us if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

Jonna Petterson Informationsansvarig/ Public Relations Manager Nobelstiftelsen / The Nobel Foundation Street Address: Sturegatan 14 P.O. Box 5232 SE-102 45 Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46 (0)8 663 27 65 Fax: +46 (0)8 660 38 47 Web: Nobelprize.org

I'm thinking Mr. Petterson made a typo and meant to say "Impossible" (but that is only by following the logic of the statement)

I have asked for clarification, but feel it may be up to Commons to define what the image represents by consensus since it is very well possible that the Nobel Foundations claim is not of copyright ownership, but simply the same right being argued by the opponents of deletion. In other words, the Nobel Foundation did NOT declare ownership of copyright, but stated a copyright law pertaining to the definition locking copyright to the photographer, without any proof themselves that they have permission.

I am now leaning towards this being a work from the media provided to the foundation for nothing more than publicity by the photographer as a photo journalist or member of the press.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I received clarification from the Nobel Foundation. They do not know if it is in the public domain. Obviously the person could not have been dead for 70 years....but they are still making the claim for that particular copyright law. They said the image was given to them for general use, but have no photographer information. They clearly do not own the copyright, or know if it is the public domain or not. BUT having had the image supplied for general use and not having the information is very much an inclination that it may well have been supplied by UPI.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nobel foundation seems surprisingly clueless... Anyway, if the image was not commissioned by them, the most likely source would be the writer's agent or his publisher. Even if the photo has a US origin, as far as we know it was first published in Stockholm, and Swedish law applies - {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well now if you argue the point that it was supplied by an agent or publicist and not from the press then you run into a copyright ownership issue exists in more than Swedish law. However.....the copyright is NOT owned by the Nobel Foundation so clearly Swedish law DOES NOT APPLY. You are incorrect when you claim the most likely original published source to be Swedish, but then that does not matter, as Swedish Law covers from the year the image was produced. Just because an image appears in a Swedish Website, does not mean the original copyright owner loses rights. The Nobel Foundation NEVER owned the image.

Simply put, the Swedish Law argument for public Domain is gone. I am making an attempt to find the information necessary to protect the rights of all parties and find the photographer and copyright owner. It hasn't been that difficult to discover Nobel didn't know enough to own or even have permission of the images use, I doubt it will be that hard to locate representatives of Steinbeck's Estate or publishers.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The photo was published in Les Prix Nobel in 1963 (published in Stockholm); Swedish law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a given that the Nobel Committee has published the image. Swedish law copyrights images from the year it is produced, not published. The Nobel Foundation has no claim on the image itself regardless of their use of the image both in it's original 1960's use and it's current use on their website. The image was provided for the Foundation and they are not the copyright holder. The original published source is not the copyright holder in this case both by facts and by Swedish Law.

The country of origin would be the law that would be followed by Wikimedia Commons and Swedish law clearly does not apply, unless you know something we don't. We know the image was published, we know the publisher has no claim on the image or knowledge of photographer and has fully admitted that the image was given to them. We can assume they had permission for it's use, but there is absolutely no way to know where the image was taken or who the photographer was without taking further steps.

As it stands right now, Swedish Law does not apply.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Country of origin, per the Berne Convention, is the country of first publication. So if this photo's first publication was by Nobel (regardless of who owns the copyright), then yes Commons would apply Swedish law. If it was previously published in another country, then we would not. As it stands now, we know of no earlier publication, so Swedish law is still the most reasonable to apply. However, more information is always good, so further inquiries are always a good thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki;Berne Convention

Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention.

So I am having doubts to the above statement about copyright beginning at publication, as I have always understood this quote protected my photographs in this same manner.

The problem I am having with this situation is that I feel there is an assumption that this is not a creative work, but a photographic picture under Swedish law. However since there are many in this discussion that agree the image appears to be a creative work even under Swedish Law this would not be public Domain. However, I am simply not convinced that the photograph is not protected from the moment it is produced, by the photographer in this situation. Swedish Law specifies that the copyright begins at its production not publication and even if we argue and agree with that, it only sets a start date and does not establish the copyright as the publication of owners of publication. The image is still the copyright of the photographer EVEN IF Anonymous.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... oof. Yes, of course copyright subsists upon creation, at least in any country which is a member of the Berne Convention. "Country of origin" is a technical term though, defined in Article 5(4) of the Berne Convention. Commons rules are to use the law of the "country of origin" and the U.S., and the country of origin is determined using that formula -- and the laws we use are therefore generally those from the country where a work was first published. Berne minimum protection for photographs is 25 years from creation, which Sweden exceeds. Normally, of course, you would use the laws of whatever country you are in. For countries which use the "rule of the shorter term", such as all of the EU, then the technical definition of "country of origin" quite often comes into play, as the law of that country must also be considered when determining terms. So while an author owns copyright from creation, the term of that copyright can be greatly influenced by the country in which the author chooses to first publish it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image may or may not be public domain

There is no indication Swedish Law applies on this image. I believe it best to attempt to contact the three best possible sources for further information. The Estate, Publisher and UPI.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic work or not

Delete because it is an artistic work and the claim of the contrary is unsourced (I did state my view above already). It is in copyright until the end of 2032 if the photographer is anonymous. Sweden surely has a separate protection for photographic pictures (those are all photographs--including artistic and non-artistic works). Whether a photo is artistic or not can in some cases be hard to determine. But this one is artistic. To repeat myself, look how two independent Danish copyright experts state their view (remember that Denmark has a very similar copyright act):

" Evaluating whether a photograph meets the threshold of originality, includes elements such as composition, the angle of the photo, the choice of scene, perspective, lighting etc.. An independent effort must have been made where multiple options were available. In practice, one will often look at whether the photographer has a professional education and uses photography to make a living. But of course nothing prevents an amateur from creating a photographic work. "

(Birkmann, Anette & Dyekjær, Thomas Maagaard (2006): Håndbog i ophavsret (in Danish), Nyt Juridisk Forlag, p. 64)

	" The requirement for originality may be met if the photographer was creative in the choice of scene [...] or there may be originality in the timing [...] There may also be originality in the photographers choice of angle and positioning of the camera, the lighting, arranging the photographed people, depth of field etc. "
	(Rosenmeier, Morten (2007): Ophavsret for begyndere (in Danish), Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, p. 52)

(Translation by User:Hemmingsen. See ([16]). Nillerdk (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So according to these Danish experts, there is a separate provision in the to protect the copyright of family photos? My Danish is not good enough to search for other opinions by other experts. But the Swedish background of this law is clear. Its purpose was to protect professional photography. The examples given when this law was proposed to Parliament include press photo, photography for advertisement and ordinary portrait photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a source to support your claims. I'm truly interested. Quote them here as I have done. And that was it. I don't believe it until I see it and I should not - you know that because you are a scientist. (PS: I'm sure you understand Danish since your Swedish is pretty good) Nillerdk (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Enligt förarbetena till 1960 års upphovsrättslag gjorde lagstiftaren en distinktion mellan å ena sidan fotografiska verk, och å andra sidan "pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering"." You can find it in "Nytt juridiskt arkiv" (NJA II 1961 page 108). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quote. Now I know what you are talking about. For those who don't understand Swedish, I'll try to translate (please correct my mistakes, Pieter):

	" In connection to the preparatory work on the 1960 copyright law did the legislators make the distinction between photographic works on the one hand and "press photo and other journalistic photos, advertisements, and other commercial photos, passport photos and other simple portrait photographs" on the other hand. "
	("Nytt juridiskt arkiv" (NJA II 1961 page 108))

I'm just not sure how relevant this old quote is today. The actual copyright law is basically from 1994 I think. According to the svwiki article on copyright (where this is quoted as well) some more modern interpretations (Olsson 2006 and Nordell 1997) are more careful, i.e., they mention examples like amateur photos, photos taken in a rush and simple photos of big events which just happened to be in front of the camera (Hindenburg disaster, JFK murder). The question whether carefully taken professional portraits are in copyright remains. Nillerdk (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, there has been a lot of copyright creep since 50 years ago. The threshold of what qualifies as an artistic work has gone down. Maybe nowadays fashion photographers can claim that also their work in mail order catalogues are works of art. But that needs an author to claim the work as art. I do not see how an image without authorship or marks of individual creativity could be artistic works. Anyway, in Finland (similar law), the photographer of File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg was not successful in claiming that his photo was an artistic work. Also in Finland, there was a case of a landscape photo that the photographer lost. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All works, including this one have "Authorship". You are assertion this is anonymous therefore has no author is simply bad logic. For Swedish Law to apply on this image you have to show how there is any claim in Sweden that the image was created there. Simply being published in Sweden does not give the publisher the copyright (and we know they do not have the copyright) so how does the Swedish law still apply on this image?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above, being published first in Sweden would make Sweden the "country of origin". It would not change the copyright ownership of course. The "country of origin" is not the country of the author, unless it is unpublished (not true here) or never published in a Berne country (also not true here). It is also not necessarily the country it is created in; where it is first published is the one determining "country of origin" (and therefore the laws we look at). Your statements are almost entirely incorrect. What Pieter Kuiper is saying is that any photograph (in Sweden) where the author is so unimportant as to not be mentioned would be considered a "photographic picture" and not a "work". As a counterexample, you would always see Ansel Adams's name mentioned when one of his photographs is published. And as you found out above, even the Nobel organization doesn't privately know who the photographer is. I'm not sure that many countries use that as a dividing line, but obviously Sweden at least once did. The main question is if that substantially changed upon joining the EU (it did in Germany, but given the above, did not change as much in Denmark), and that may be very difficult to answer. When this picture was first made, it was definitely a "photographic picture" and therefore its copyright in Sweden expired in 1988 or so. But, there is a chance it was restored when Sweden joined the EU -- but if there haven't been any relevant court cases in Sweden since, there may be no guidance whatsoever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problems with that are; you are making wild assumptions about the photograph based on very dubious standards. You are deciding that it is not covered by Swedish law by defining it to suit the needs of publishing under public domain. YOU HAVE NO PROOF that the Nobel foundation was the FIRST to publish if YOU don't know who the photographer was. The subject is well known enough THE PHOTOGRAPHER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE!

I am just a little fed up with this to be honest.

I would think we would want absolute proof something is in the public domain and untill then it would be rejected. I am getting a little concerned about this. There is an attempt to make this a debate that is irrelevant because a judgement call had to be made to come up with that direction and that is the main fault of the theory. The photo will remain. I guess it's easier to just take something that doesn't belong to you than to take the time to find out the author. Sometimes Wiki does deserve the criticism it gets.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolute proof is pretty hard to come by when it comes to copyright -- most especially when trying to determine what is meant by somewhat ambiguous terms like "photographic work" vs "photographic picture" when no concrete examples are given. This is especially true for most photographs, as quite often nobody cares enough about the copyright status to retain full documentation when making copies (unlike novels or paintings which authors spend months on) -- which has happened here. We can only do the best we can given the information we have. In many situations there is simply not enough information and they will be deleted, but in others there is at least some, and based on that info if we have a very good (defensible) reason to believe it is PD, then we often do keep it. If further information comes to light, then we will delete obviously. We accept good faith on uploads claimed as "own work" from essentially anonymous users -- we have nowhere near "absolute proof" on those, and will delete if it is shown the uploader was lying. We allow images from U.S. books published before 1923 -- though there is no absolute proof that an image wasn't first published, say, in some long-forgotten UK county-scale magazine. There almost never will be proof of that kind, so if it at least seems "likely" with no information at all which points to "not likely", we will often go with that -- we just need a good reason to point to as to why we think it is PD, which can be debunked by better info. We do know this one was published in Sweden in the early 1960s, and thus far have no reason to believe it was published elsewhere prior to that (does Nobel typically get new portraits made, or use existing stock photos?). This is most certainly a problematic image due to the "picture vs work" question, and if that definition changed upon Sweden joining the EU (especially as it goes against my U.S. prejudices where photographs have the same copyrights as other works). But we will follow the laws it seems most reasonable to follow. I've looked for this photo on gettyimages.com (which often has copies of the usual stock photos cross-licensed to all those agencies) and spent 3-4 hours on the web to see if I could find another source for this image, but have come up empty. We all would like better source information, but all we have is that it was published in Sweden in 1962, and the Nobel committee currently has a bogus copyright claim on their website (since they do not own the copyright, or know the details themselves, they really can't claim it). By the Swedish laws, the case can be made for PD. There is a point where it becomes paranoia, which is very destructive -- deleting any photo where we don't have full, documented, irrefutable evidence of all relevant author and publication information from when it was first created until now. I don't see any reason to presume it was published anywhere else... generally, it seems reasonable to presume images published in Swedish-authored books are first published there. The main uncomfortable part for me is which term of protection does it get under current Swedish law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Saugeais_flag.gif

Also File:Saugeais flag.svg

Flag of the micronation Republic of Saugeais. Uploader was not the original creator, and is not the copyright holder. OTRS permission would be required. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment further information is needed. It seems that this image was originally uploaded on en.wiki but it has been deleted after it was uploaded on Commons. An admin on en.wiki can clarify the situation. Sv1xv (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Original text on enwp was-

== Summary ==

Flag of the Republic of Saugeais

== Licensing ==

So doesn't really address the issue. Even if the uploader was the original author, we would need OTRS permission. I will contact him on enwp to let him know about this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete I uploaded it, 'cause I trusted the license (I was younger than now and less expert than now and all that sort of things than now...) on en.wiki. As long as we have the svg file, I think there's no need to keep the gif version. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Have you noticed that the SVG version is also listed for deletion since July 18 and could be deleted anytime now? I converted it to a regulad deletion request, they can be both discussed here. Sv1xv (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statutes at Large Volume 1 split files

File:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1 - front matter.djvu (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1 - p1-22.djvu (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1 - Congress 1-2.djvu (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1 - Congress 3-5.djvu (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

These files are all extracts from a single work, File:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel), that is now online in its entirety. The extracts were placed online when the maximum file size on the Commons was smaller. Now that the file size limit has been increased and the full document uploaded as a single file, there is no need to preserve the split versions. The transcription project(s) on en.ws that formerly relied on the split files have been relocated to s:Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu, so no WS content should be affected by deleting the split files. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if they are deleted. I can see only a little benefit in keeping the smaller files, in case someone wants only a segment. However they hold no further value to Wikisource. p.s. thanks Tarmstro99 for migrating the Wikisource content to the new file. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Verdens_undergang.jpg

Frame from Danish film from 1916. Director and actors haven't been dead for 70 years (see [17]) and the film is thus not PD in Denmark (country of origin). PD-Denmark50 is not valid for works of art, films included. Nillerdk (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep {{PD-Denmark50}} should be valid for frames from films. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Pieter. Films are works of art - those people are acting and are instructed to do so. Real copyright applies (70 pma) in addition to protection of photographic pictures (50 years after creation). Denmark is not a country without copyright law! Please read §1 of the Danish CONSOLIDATED ACT ON COPYRIGHT 2003 again and tell us why a frame from a movie should not be covered under this §1. The regulations of §70 should be seen as an additional right to makers of photographic pictures - not the contrary (§70.3: If a photographic picture is subject to copyright according to section 1, this right may also be exercised). Nillerdk (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If a novel is a work of art, that does not mean that every word in it is a work of art. The Swedish high court regarded single frames from a documentary film as "photographic images" (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the document you are referring to is from 1981 and is referring to Swedish matters. Notice that Denmark is not a province of Sweden at the moment even if law are similar - Swedish court decisions are not relevant in Denmark. The document is referring to a Swedish law which is not in force in Sweden anymore (Lag om rätt till fotografisk bild) and you surely know that photographs since 1994 (Sweden) and 1995 (Denmark) have been protected by Lagen om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk and the corresponding Danish Lov om Ophavsret instead of separate laws. Check out §90 [18] - copyright is effective even for works older than the law. Your document has no relevance to the actual case of the frame from Verdens Undergang. Nillerdk (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nordic countries are quite similar when it comes to copyright, because the governments made an effort to coordinate legislation. That is why analogies are relevant. By the way, this frame has a watermark. Had it been separately published before? A long time ago maybe? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The watermark looks like the logo of Nordisk Film. Why? Nillerdk (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the same as for example File:Agteskab og Pigesjov.JPG - from publicity material for the movie. Anonymous photographer of a photo made on the set. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the rights of the director? Are you claiming he is anonymous as well? I'm not going to argue any further. I have made my point. Nillerdk (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Work of art. Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. {{PD-1923}}. The movie was released independently in the U.S.A.

Keep Rune X2 (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? Commons policy say it must be PD in country of origin and in the US. US-legislation would not make otherwise copyrighted work PD in Denmark. Nillerdk (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki to EN.wikipedia, not PD in source country, but pre-1923 is accepted there. And yes, Films usually do have artistic merit. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lwasis.JPG

bad quality, big watermark through all image Athenchen (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Clear copyvio. Hekerui (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Uploader may well be copyright holder, but watermark is so bad as to destroy the picture. --Simonxag (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Bad quality, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Is any admin watching the backlog? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of Makks2010

File:Three former prime ministers of India.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Men flagellate themselves with knives at an Ashura event in Pilibhit during Moharram in 1968.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun Gandhi, BJP leader.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun gandhi1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Maneka Gandhi.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun's supporter and Police had clashes in Pilibhit 28 march 2009.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun's supports creating nuisance in Pilibhit 28 mar 2009.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun after court arrest in Pilibhit 28 march 2009.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Police taking Varun to jail in Pilibhit 28 mar 2009.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Nuisance strucked police head querter in Pilibhit 28 march 2009.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A supporter of Varun Gandhi, beaten by a Police during protest aganist Varun's Arrest on 29 Mar 2009 in Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Lathi charge on Varun Gandhi's Supporters on 28 March 2009 in Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Varun Gandhi in a public meeting in Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Election symbol menaka gandhi 1999.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Praja Socialist Party Flag till 1969.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bhartiya Jan Sangh Flag.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Praja Socialist Party Flag.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Socialist Party Flag till 1962.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bahujan Samaj Party flag.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Menaka Gandhi's Indipendent Election Symbol for 1998 & 1999 Elections.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Rahul Gandhi Signature.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Soniya Gandhi Signature.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Rahul Gandhi Signature.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Maneka Gandhi Signature.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Lal Krishna Advani Signature.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Firoz Varun Gandhi Signature.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bareilly 1890s.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sri NanakMatta Sahib Gurudwara.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Stumbled onto this Sikh festival....turbans and spears.....a formidable combination.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Raksha Bandhan Shop In Pilibhit Market.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Flute manufecturer in Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Mazar-e-Alahazrat.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Taj Mahal at Agra.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Threshing in fields in Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Dussera Celebration at Ram Leela ground Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Jalebi, a popular local Sweet, under prepration pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Basant Panchmi 2006 Celebration.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A mode of trasportation in Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Timeless Method of Commerce, Vegitable seller at Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bus new-delhi-india.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Vegitable vendor at local shop, Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Kitchen at a Village Madhotanada, Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:People at Pilibhit Railway Junction.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Holi Celebration in Pilibhit 20 march 2008.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A colourful Holi celebration In Pilibhit 20 march 2008.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Lets light up the darkest part - Diwali 2007.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Fog At Pilibhit On Jan 12 2009.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A foggy night at Pilibhit Railway Junction.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:St Aloysis College, Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:National Highway-74.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Mango Orchid In Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Agricultural - forestry Center Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:An early Morning.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Heavy over head loads, Women have to carry loads of grass and fire wood for making mats and cooking..jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:No Safety concerns, People have to cross the Sharda River in unsafe and over-loaded boats causing numerous deaths each year.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A government school without any furniture, computer or other tools for making learning more fun and interesting.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A works train makes its way out, over the recently restored alignment, which, not so long ago, was breached by the Sharda River in Pilibhit During flood in Sept 2008.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Reserve forest, in-route Lakhimpur from Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:The Sharda river is a tributary of the Ghagra which in turn is a tributary of the Ganges, During the flood in Sept 2008, in Pilibhit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Villagers survey the damage caused by sarada floods in Pilibhit in Sept 2008.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Train Boarding in Pilihbit.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Tigar Trail at Pilibhit Tigar Reserve.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Flora and Fauna en route to Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Pilibhit Railway Junction.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sunset at forest area Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A mud hut used for growing squash.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Road side water canal at Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Rana Tharu Woman from Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Population Under Poverty line In Uttar pradesh.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Haripur Range Forest In District Pilibhit.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Jawahar Lal Nehru.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Lal Bahadur Shastri.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Morarji Desai.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:P V Narasimha Rao.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Indira Gandhi.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:V P Singh.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:I K Gujaral.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:H D Devegauda.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:A View of Gurudwara Sri Chattavi Padshahi from the bank of river Devhahuti Ganga'.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Gurudwara Sri Chattawi Padshahi.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Oracle FSS.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Health Facilities In District Pilibhit (UP).JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Khudirambose.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Khudii Ram Bose.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Santosh Kumar Gangwar.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Santosh Gangwar.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Pilibhit Flood Sept 2008 2.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Pilibhit Flood Sept 2008 1.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

I believe that User:Makks2010's images are all copyvios because User:Makks2010 claims everything he uploaded was own work, including a picture of the hanging of the first Indian freedom fighter, a close-up of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi in 1959 (the user's Wikipedia userpage states he is 24 years old), other images which are obviously historical images collected from several sources, violent protests in 2009, a famous man's first steps out of prison, a painting, professional portraits of former Prime Ministers of India, etc. Hekerui (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete, ban, and too bad if some of these were legitimately his. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete delete all as copyvios, ban. feydey ^(talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro

File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Yakro Basilique.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Yakro basilique002.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
Category:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro

No freedom of panorama in the Ivory Coast, note also this similar nomination. Furthermore, we should not be categorising based on this building, as the building itself is copyrighted. That would be like categorising based on a copyrighted painting, because we had some images that showed the painting in the background. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete OK. Make sense to me. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete the lot. The basilica was only built in 1989 and there's no FOP. --Simonxag (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete unfortunately due to FOP issues. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep That country allows filming architectural works, and a movie is nothing but a series of moving images. Extracting a single frame would make it a copyvio under this analysis. It is necessary to check what is actually allowed in IC. I would prefer interpretation of the aforementioned law in the way of rule a maiorem ad minus. If moovie is allowed, much more a single picture is allowed. So KEEP and CHECK.--Qasinka (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently located in a public place may be reproduced and made available to the public by means of cinematography or television." Is a photograph on a website cinematography or television? No. Laws generally don't make much sense (anyone with a basic grasp of political philosophy realises that...); we have to live with the fact, sadly. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to know ivorycostan judicature on the section 34. Since the plain interpretation of the legal text is not allways the proper one. Courts use often logical interpretation rules (as the a maiorem ad minus is) in order to give the laws a sense.--Qasinka (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And secondly - what is moyen de la cinématographie? A photo is often used in moovies (e. g. zoomed in or out). Isn't it a "mean"?--Qasinka (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer or a linguist. I'm going off what our policy pages say. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy pages on France do cite the respective judicature. The same is necessary for IC.--Qasinka (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 11

[edit] File:Japanese_bombing_chinese_main_road.jpg

No sign that first publication occured in China. Missing source information. Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think should be published by the japanese imperial army during the sino japanese war. {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} --Yimeagle (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find this picture? What information was available there? --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

here. It's about Sino Japanese war and bombardment of Chungking. --Yimeagle (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, then no more information about the first publication of the work? --Eusebius (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The source (from China) didn't give further information.

However, it was a photograph about a group of bombers of the Japanese Imperial Army bombing China's Chungking during sino japanese war, so it is reasonably probable that the photo was taken and first publicated by the JIA of the Empire of Japan.

Anyway there were only Chinese warplanes or Japanese warplanes fighting in the sky during the sino japanese war. The Flying tiger (US volunteers) was under China's direction.

--Yimeagle (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but that doesn't say anything about the first publication of the work. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the source give no further information about that. Only that the first publication must be either by the Republic of China or the Empire of Japan. (Mostly likely the japanese for propaganda purpose. (during time 1937 - 1945)).

--Yimeagle (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to Keep with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Artworks by Danny Sillada

File:Adam_&_Eve,_2003,_50_X_40_inches_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_C._Sillada.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bandage_of_Faith,_2009,_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Daloy,_2003,_installation_art_by_Danny_Sillada.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Danny_C._Sillada.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Danny_Sillada_performing_his_ethnic_music_with_higalong_instrument.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Enemy_Within,_live_art_performance_by_Danny_C._Sillada_(from_the_series_of_Juramintado_live_art_performances).jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Fountain_of_Life,_installation_art_by_Danny_Sillada.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:I_&_Thou_Encounter_Series,_pen_&_ink_by_Danny_C._Sillada.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Menstrual_Period_in_Political_History,_2005,_60_x_50_inch,_acrylic_&_metamorphic_rock_on_board.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Political_Masturbation_on_Mass_Media_and_Television,_2009,_gold_leaf_&_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:The_Messenger_in_the_Land_of_Broken_Promises,_2009,_gold_leaf_&_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:When_a_Mask_is_no_longer_a_Mask,_2009,_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Painting by known author uploded to flicker by someone else. No proof that painting was released as CC Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment After closer inspection all paintings in Category:Danny Sillada or all uploads by User:Jaclorenz seen like copy violations: flicker uploader seems to be uploding stuff he finds on the internet and not his own works. For example File:Danny C. Sillada.JPG can be found here and it is an official publicity photo of the author. As for artwork of Danny Sillada we need a proof that Danny Sillada released it under CC license. Link to his internet page saying so or Commons:OTRS would be needed. --Jarekt (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I am quite convinced that http://www.flickr.com/photos/existentialist/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/thephilosopher/ are the artist's own accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I agree, after even more research I found [19] which suggest that flicker uploder the Philosopher is the author of the paintings Danny Sillada. In such a case all the images here would be fine. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Huib talk 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Giotto di Bondone - Paolo Uccello.jpg

Converted from a speedy by uploader for "There is File:Cinque maestri del rinascimento fiorentino, XVI sec, giotto.JPG" to rfd by me. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand you. What's the matter if I requested speedy deletion for a file that exists already on commons? I just realized this too late. --Gikü (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The images are not really (100%) duplicates, which would justify a speedy deletion. An RFD as this one may well end in deletion, but it allows community discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This copy seems to be a scan of a rastered image, inferior in quality to the other file. ~~Uploader~~ the person who tranferred this to commons is requesting deletion, and it is not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mirta.jpg

This pic and some more from es:MADRES_(película) need an OTRS ticket by Eduardo Walger, isn't it? 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC) --79.194.92.139 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LakeTunedae02-15-2005.JPG

inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment i'm not sure i understand your logic....the image is that of a completely different lake. --emerson7 | Talk 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Your nomination reason makes it appear as if you nominate it because the spelling in filename and description is wrong. That is no ground for deletion. If the image is of a completely different lake than the one it is supposed to be, you should state that in the nomination. However, if you nominate it because there's a name in the typo, there's no reason to change it, just fix the typo in the description.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: bottom line: 1) the image is not of lake tuendae, and 2) everything about the file is incorrect, including the filename and description. other than being a generic picture in the desert (of which we have little use) one can only speculate about what the actual subject of the image is about. --emerson7 | Talk 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laketunedaeplants022006-14.jpg.JPG

inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment It appears the nominator wants them to be deleted because they are not of said lake. I was under the impression he was disturbed by the typo in the anem and description, therefore thinking this image was incorrect. I trust nominators knowledge on the matter, so I see no problem with this being deleted.--Fogeltje (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LakeTunedae02-2005.JPG

inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment i'm not sure i understand your logic....the image is that of a completely different lake. --emerson7 | Talk 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

CommentYour nomination reason makes it appear as if you nominate it because the spelling in filename and description is wrong. That is no ground for deletion. If the image is of a completely different lake than the one it is supposed to be, you should state that in the nomination. However, if you nominate it because there's a name in the typo, there's no reason to change it, just fix the typo in the description.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: bottom line: 1) the image is not of lake tuendae, and 2) everything about the file is incorrect, including the filename and description. other than being a generic picture in the desert (of which we have little use) one can only speculate about what the actual subject of the image is about. --emerson7 | Talk 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment If the image is not of said lake, then you should have made your nomination more clear. I trust you can see if the image is not of this lake, so I guess there is no problem with deleting the image after all. Having an incorrect filename or description (a typo) itself though is not a ground for deletion if this image had been of lake tuendae, but the description could have simply been corrected to change the spelling. I believed you nominated it only because there was a typo in the filename and description but the image still being of said lake.--Fogeltje (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 12

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

[edit] Images of Arizias

File:Dch3.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Dch2.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Dcs1.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sullana edited9.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Chilalo8.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Cem.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Rmpl.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Cpiu.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bujanzarma.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Poecho.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Taxi sulla.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Barrio sur.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Puente del Ferrocarril.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Mercado Central.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:ESC-MAR.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Escudo de bellavista.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Bandera de Sullana.gif (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Marcavelica.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Entierro tallan.gif (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Tallanes.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Capullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Tallan1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Concejo Provincial.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Anticity.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sntim.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:MANBRE.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Puentejo.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sullana69.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Antigua.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Chri1.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Iglecia.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Capullana-sullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:S-metro.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Area-sullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Edificio,sullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Sullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
File:Escudo de sullana.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

I believe that almost all User:Arizias's images are copyvios because several of them were taken from different websites.

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. All these nominations by the above IP are simply nonsentical. There is no such thing in Greek legislation. Restriction of the freedom of "panorama"?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: All these mass DR requests by Iconoclast (and his anon IP) appear like a bad faith attempt to delete images while a discussion over them is still taking place. Iconoclast and his IP should be banned for 1 week to stop this disruptive activity as he shows no courtesy or good faith to others. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Iconoclast is not responding to the objection above, he is just stacking another nomination on top of the previous one. This is disruptive behaviour. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:EleftheriosVenizelosGraveCloseup.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.119.61 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, ineligible (simple shape and short text). –Tryphon ^☂ 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept. PER Tryphon. MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:EleftheriosVenizelosGraveCloseup.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is the second nomination; Iconoclast is disruptive; I suggest a block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Question of FOP is only relevant if the object is some sort of "work of art". This is only a cross and some lettes. --MGA73 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Previous closing stands. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Œ splash.jpg

Es un archivo de publicidad de la empresa

This deletion request was a member of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage. The original nominator of this file was Undeath (talk · contributions); see diff — df| 11:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - copyvio & out of scope. — df| 11:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Wolfram3 640x480.jpg

user request

This deletion request was a member of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage. The original nominator of this file was Amrhingar (talk · contributions); see diff — df| 11:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep It is in use at the German Wikipedia. Inductiveload (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Wolfram3 640x480.jpg

please delete; not longer in use --Amrhingar correct malformed DR --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep used on the German Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. --Eusebius (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:1815-1821.jpg

converted from a speedy by User:Cflm001 for "Low quality version of File:Flag of the Mexican Insurgents (naval variant).svg" (aka duplicate) to rfd by me, as images are not 100% identical (colors). Image is actually unused and has artifacts at its left border. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Too low quality to be useful. --Leyo 09:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Comedie_fantastica-web.jpg

Copyright infringement. Image is a still from a 1975 film Alex:D (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Clear copyvio. Inductiveload (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please notify the uploader when nominating for deletion. I will do it now. Inductiveload (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be done automatically? --Alex:D (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it wasn't done over 12 hours after the nomination. I think it is supposed to do it automatically: the wording in the template suggest that it is, but it also says to do it yourself if the relevant things haven't appeared within a few minutes. In the few NfDs I've started, none have automatically left notification on the user's page. Maybe it's broken? Inductiveload (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, anyone? Copyright infringement? It means big trouble? --Alex:D (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chantelle_in_blue.JPG

I doubt that this is a user created image, looks like a professional awards show image. Admrboltz (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ČSSD-ÚnL.jpg

Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I cannot read Czech, but these texts are probably not sufficiently original for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. For the record, I have speedied other pictures in the same series, but they showed mainly photographs. --Eusebius (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is write something like one political party (orange) is against corruption and the other party (blue) are mafians. I think this one is really photo taken with his cellphone (see EXIF). —Jagro (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Authorship of the photograph is not questionned. --Eusebius (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Photo of electoral advertisment in the public place. It is somethink like this. —Jagro (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's comparable, this one can definitely not fall under a FOP exception (only ineligibility + de minimis for the logo). By definition, an electoral advertisement is not permanent, and what's displayed on an advertisement panel is a copy, not the original, for which the rights are not cancelled. --Eusebius (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete I rekon this poster has enough to be copyrightable, there is layout as well as textual content. FOP doesn't apply to temporary adverts (or else any edvert in an FOP-friendly country would be fair game on Commons, and they're not). The logos are not de minimis in my opinion, as they are a major element of the election poster. Inductiveload (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

¿? Even the graffity is more original than the layout and the logos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Major_JACK_BAZZARD.jpg

Possible copyvio since the image file is identical to the one at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/army-obituaries/5675345/Major-Jack-Bazzard.html Jll (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:D&RGW_Castle_Gate_steam_train_approaching.jpg

Denver Public Library's claim is almost certainly copyfraud. Given Beam's death date, probably OK to keep, but there may be other issues of which I'm not aware. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The Library should have its legal counsel review 17 U.S.C. § 506(c). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 13

[edit] File:Housing_world.gif

Trademaked logo used as vehicle for spam. This is by no stretch "free content". Calton (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the uploader is User:Housingworld, they may well legitimately be the owner and be placing this under cc-by-3.0. Shouldn't we try following up for an OTRS before deciding to delete? - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] [[:File:Joaquin ''Caramelo'' Bravo.jpg]]

out of scope Manuelt15 (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arno_Babajanian_statue_Yerevan.jpg

Armenia only allows a limited form of freedom of panorama: sculptures and statues that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes. Hekerui (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This is a sculpture and Armenia has no FOP like all of the former Soviet states sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sankaran.jpg

The file looks like an old scanned picture, needs evidence of permission. Hekerui (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is scanned, but the quality of the picture is very good. It doesn't look like it's from a magazine: the uploader could be the photographer. --Simonxag (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coat of Arms of Azov (Rostov oblast) 2006.jpg

SVG version is avaliable --WWay (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This image should be deleted bacause it's worse quality raster version. SVG version is already uploaded to commons and replaced in all wikias. So old file is unused now. All Russian coats of arms is not the objects of copyright, so we can use SVG versions in high resolution without limitations.--WWay (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SVG Version: File:Coat of Arms of Azov.svg

Comment Vectorised version is identical and of superior quality. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep SVG replacement is usually not a reason to delete. I've added a vector-version-available tag on the image page. Inductiveload (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we leave this bad qiuality double? By the way I was nominated it for deletion not because of double but because of unused image. This is why this request is not for speedy deletion. This image is unused anywhere, why should we keep it?--WWay (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Schemat Tatra K2.PNG

Totally unrealistic picture, this is not Tatra K2 tram, see File:Tram K2YU Brno.jpg, File:Tatra K2 v Brně.jpg or File:Tramvaj číslo 1125 v Pisárkách.jpg. -Harold (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Harold. --Dezidor (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Change the name and Keep. I don't know it is Tatra K2 or not but it is obvious a good example of a technical draft of an unspecific tram and maybe used as an ilustration in article about technical drafts. Electron ^<Talk?> 08:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is no existing tram. This is totally fabricated image. This is K2 tram. See number of doors, number of windows between doors, articulation or rear of the tram. --Harold (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. You are right. But I am still of opinion that it can be used to ilustrate an article about line drawing. I've changed the description and categories. The name should be changed, too, e.g. Unspecific tram line drawing.PNG. Regards Electron ^<Talk?> 09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep and rename to remove reference to Tatra K2. It's a good image of a tram, regardless of whether it is an accurate depiction of a certain model of tram or not. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

copyright protected subject is main subject here and not an incidental element. See Commons:De minimis 84user (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is a standard functional modern bridge. There are many of these types of bridges in Canada and the US too. Its not a sculpture that is certainly copyrighted. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This is in France not the USA. Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.jpg and Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#France and Belgium and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Viaduc de Millau. There it is claimed that bridges and buildings do have artistic character, at least sufficient for the Eiffage Company to take legal steps with respect to this bridge. -84user (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Clearly an architectural work, not some standard-pattern functional bridge (though I'm not sure even that would protect us under French law). --Simonxag (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Pretty standard, compare this one in Greece; just another cable-stayed tuftform bridge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Pieter, I would support you in that this picture appears "pretty standard" to me, but I did ask for advice at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#France and Belgium and Esby pointed me to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Viaduc de Millau which shows a delete for many Milau bridges. I will ask gain at FOP about this particular image. If the Commons community accepts that images like this are Ok, then it could be placed at Commons:Freedom of panorama as an example of "Ok-ness". Also the notice on Category:Viaduc de Millau needs to be reworded to make it much clearer what is and what is not accepted. It is not clear to me, and because I see different opinions, it is evidently not clear to others. -84user (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The architect, Norman Foster, yielded his (supposed) rights to a company, Viaduc Exclusive Diffusion, whose terms and conditions are rather severe. French website Cyberarchi.net considers that "if the shape of the building is dictated solely by technical necessities, for instance if the passage of pipes makes it so that the building must take this specific shape, the construction is not protected by copyright. In this respect, the ground of the Place des Terreaux, Bartholdi's Fountain, the Millau Bridge as well as the Louvre Pyramid are undoubtedly protected" ([20]). French practical guides also warn photographers that permission must be seeked for the Millau Bridge (e.g. [21]). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep I'm sure anyone who stand to gain financial gain would have other arguments, but the fact remains that this bridge is a standard design and remarkable only by the fact that it is an example of good engineering. Not of an artwork. (Gunky (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Keep Were this to be a photo of the viaduct solely- then this must go. It isn't. It is a photograph of the Tarn valley, showing the alternative routes that had to be used before A75 and the the way the A75 relates to them. The viaduct though major and unavoidable, is incidental to the shadow, the general forms of the geography. Comments that relate to aspirations and not to the realities of French law are harmful.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This picture shows part of the Tarn valley, not the whole of it; the bridge was avoidable. Why do you thinks is the picture entitled "Millau Viaduct"? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

strong Delete, this type of pictures is not allowed by the French laws. Similar images of this bridges have already been deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Viaduc de Millau). At least, renamed this picture. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

strong Comment, The real issue here is not whether that this should be deleted from commons but why it was deleted from en.wikipedia.org to begin with. The Australian author took this picture legally as a holiday photo in France, then he legally assigned a Creative Commons license to this picture which he owned in Australia, then he legally uploaded it to a United States server. It's publication status in France was never an issue until some Polish do-gooder Lukasz Lukomski decided to bring it here using this script: [[22]] which deleted it from its original location. Why do people think that en.wikipedia.org allows photos to be uploaded? Maybe this is a great candidate for a piece of intellectual property that you should Keep on en.wikipedia.org where its publication status in France is completely irrelevant. This is a stupid discussion relating to a stupid action that should have never happened, if commons doesn't want to host this image, it shouldn't have taken it to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, this is just regular wikipedia vandalism.

Please don't use big words when they are not necessary. The picture can be undeleted on en.wikipedia.org before it is deleted on Commons, so that's no problem at all. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:28, 5 December 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

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

Keep. Utilitarian object. No separately distinguishable artistic function. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Comment OK then. Delete in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09/14

[edit] September 15

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

[edit] File:Delcevo flag.jpg

allready exist

(I am installing the Deletion requests page to repair the deletion-procedure) --El-Bardo (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image carries a (C)-note at its lower border. --Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Watermark strongly suggests this is a copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Copyright violation. --Alpertron (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fredensborg v Acra.jpg

Page says The artist Ants Lepson has given his permission for this picture to be used free. Free has to be defined and we need to have this permission by Commons:OTRS. In the meantime a nomination is in place. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless OTRS permission received. --Simonxag (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you got your OTRS. --Krg (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You get my OTRS? --Krg (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone received a OTRS in this case? I have sent one. --Krg (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. No reason to delete this painting. --62.101.254.108 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. --Krg (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fugger_Markuskapelle-Rom.jpg

permission ~Lukas talk 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploader does not seem to be the author. There is no permission. --Simonxag (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fugger_Fuggerkapelle_Annakirche-Augsburg.jpg

permission ~Lukas talk 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Das Bild wurde in drei weitere Kategorien eingeordnet Martin Kluger (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: But do you have permission from "context medien und verlag Augsburg"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fugger_Galasso-Trento.jpg

permission ~Lukas talk 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:200Tugrik1994.PNG

Derivative? Commons:Currency has no info on Mongolia, and Commons:Licensing summary of Mongolian copyright law does not deal with currency. --Infrogmation (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Every reason to believe the subject is still in copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Does currency usually count as "legal documents" or "official documents"? In that case it would be exempt from copyright in Mongolia. Unfortunately the Mongolian copyright law doesn't mention it explicitly. --Latebird (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Logo_STEG.svg

I speedy deleted this file because I believe this fits the fair use policy on en.wiki, I got contacted on my talkpage that this file should be {{PD-textlogo}} but that discussion shouldn't take place on my talk so I undeleted the file and let in run for normal Deletion. Huib talk 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who contacted Abigor on his talk page, so obviously I say keep. For me it's just text, barely stylized, inside by a rounded rectangle, so {{PD-textlogo}} fits. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete That is no standard font. --Simonxag (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tranglam.jpg

Unused, unknown subject, not useful for any wikimedia project. Inductiveload (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Nice modelling of the "peace" version of the V sign. --Simonxag (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Neutral (I think) there are no reason to keep, and also no reason to delete. --lovekrittaya (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trento-mausoleo_a_Cesare_Battisti.jpg

No COM:FOP#Italy in Italy, and the mausoleum is by architect Ettore Fagiuoli, who died in 1961 Ianezz (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am both the author of the photo and the nominator for deletion since I discovered the date of death of the architect. As a note, the mausoleum of Cesare Battisti is an italian national monument (Kingdom of Italy law #468, April 2 1922, decreting the construction of a monument to Cesare Battisti in Trento). I don't know if there are specific exceptions to the italian copyright law for such cases. --Ianezz (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Uploader's request; probable copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trento-mausoleo_di_Cesare_Battisti_da_piazza_Dante.jpg

No COM:FOP#Italy in Italy, and the mausoleum is by architect Ettore Fagiuoli, who died in 1961 Ianezz (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per uploader's request; probable copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Monumento_a_Cesare_Battisti.jpg

No COM:FOP#Italy in Italy, and the mausoleum is by architect Ettore Fagiuoli, who died in 1961 Ianezz (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --Alpertron (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Skien_Byvåpen.svg

Duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skien_komm.svg Bitjungle (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Exact duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09/16 Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09/17

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents

[edit] September

[edit] September 1

[edit] File:Afrikaansdistrib.gif

[edit] File:Image21a.jpg

[edit] File:Pepe_Soriano-La_Nona_-1979.jpg

[edit] File:Neve_and_Gliz.jpg

[edit] File:Tibetan_writer_Woeser_210.jpg

[edit] File:LEMUR.JPG

[edit] File:Osman.png

[edit] File:PolytechNiceSophia4.jpg

[edit] File:Divrigi02.jpg

[edit] File:Islambouli_cropped.JPG

[edit] File:Club_logo.jpg

[edit] File:KHD-Statuten .pdf

[edit] September 2

[edit] File:Knight's_Uintathere.PNG

[edit] File:Shokunin United Kingdom map.svg

[edit] File:Kaithgarbhlive.jpg

[edit] Files uploaded by Greekboy on en.wikipedia

[edit] Files uploaded by Egtheod on en.wikipedia

[edit] File:MilocObilicFragment.jpg

[edit] File:UAE_PASSPORT.jpg

[edit] File:Klickety_Cuffs.png

[edit] File:Andrew_Martin.jpg

[edit] File:WINTERS_Limited_Partnership_Company_Logo.gif

[edit] File:Complex_Rzeczka_-_Riese.JPG

[edit] File:Jirina8.jpg

[edit] September 3

[edit] File:Dentreek_jachthuis_2748.png

[edit] File:Dentreek_jachthuis_2748.png

[edit] Images uploaded by user:Equusgazing

[edit] Template:Link FA

[edit] File:Edwikiimg.jpg

[edit] September 4

[edit] File:La_reproduction_des_chameaux.jpg

[edit] File:Guatemala 10 centavo.jpg

[edit] File:Istanbul_collage.jpg

[edit] File:Sinclair_jones.jpg

[edit] File:Vereinswappen Münster FC wiki.jpg

[edit] File:PracaLiberdade-1.jpg

[edit] File:Cairo_Opera_1.jpg

[edit] September 5

[edit] File:Philadelphia Liberty Medal.png

[edit] Derivatives of modern works in Category:Nordrhein-Westfalen-Tag 2008 Wuppertal

[edit] File:PQuinnIllinois.jpg

[edit] Files uploaded by Orage 100

[edit] File:Ghanatroops.jpg

[edit] File:DaveLimSirius-full.jpg

[edit] File:Mowlogo.jpg

[edit] File:RCDE.JPG

[edit] File:I_want_you_to_die_for_Israel.jpg

[edit] File:Nachtjagd_Dornier_Do217J2.jpg

[edit] File:Nachtjagd_Fw_189.jpg

[edit] File:Gomez.jpg

[edit] File:Obwód_witebski_narody.png

[edit] File:Doyle.jpg

[edit] File:Governor_Mark_Sanford_Jobs_and_Growth_Tour.jpg

[edit] File:Ed_Rendell.jpg

[edit] Images of GTorre

[edit] File:CapitalDistrict.png

[edit] File:CapitalDistrictBadEdit.png

[edit] File:Blacksnake.JPG

[edit] File:Planet Super-Mars.jpg

[edit] September 6

[edit] File:Complex_Osówka_-_Riese.JPG

[edit] File:TOFdurk-HvB-B19.jpg

[edit] File:Donaldson_landscape.jpg

[edit] File:Ssc2004-20a.jpg

[edit] File:Aliza-sherman.JPG

[edit] File:2010_SAG_PMap.jpg, File:2010 SAG PN.JPG

[edit] September 7

[edit] File:NOKIA E63.gif

[edit] File:Wir_wollen_sein_ein_einzig_Volk_von_Brüdern_red.jpg

[edit] File:Weather_Ship_Cumulus.jpg

[edit] Several photos of PK1913

[edit] File:Possible_NWLLR_routes.jpg

[edit] File:Brasileiras_na_Serra_da_Canastra.jpg