Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 November 4 1.1 File:Taniyama.jpg 1.2 Images of Laurita19 1.3 File:Walker_Family_Crest.jpg 1.4 File:Vladimir_Presnyakov_Jr.jpg 1.5 File:Jørnrønnau.jpg 1.6 Montage of Columbus station logos 1.7 File:Identiteitskaart.JPG 1.8 File:Satyricon_download2.jpg 1.9 File:Agnetha_Immergeil_Card.jpg etc. 1.10 File:Euchloe-tagisEM.JPG 1.11 File:Ss_neue_reichskanzlei.jpg 1.12 File:Stadion_Miejski_w_Krakowwie_stary5.jpg

[edit] November 4

[edit] File:Taniyama.jpg

(a) copyright violation; file is a derivative work of http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/blogimages/Taniyama.jpg (b) Violation of No Original Research policy, which prohibits user-created art rtc (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Derivative work may be a problem here, but there is on prohibition against user-created works on Commons. Indeed, probably half our images are user created photographs, and many are user-created computer graphics. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I was talking about user-created art, not content in general. See COM:PS. Commons is not an art community; user-created art can be posted on any one of the art communities, like deviantart. --rtc (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep, not a derivative work, and original research is not a concern (see COM:NPOV). The file is in use, hence in scope. –Tryphon^☂ 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  DeleteThe No Original Research policy simply doesn't exist in this form on the Commons. However looking at the photo and the drawing, I'm sure that the latter was derived from the former. The photo captures a particular moment in time with the subject looking askance and his tie parted in a particular way. I'd say these peculiarities (captured by the photographer's skill and artistry) have been transferred to the new artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete - This appears a clear case of a derivative work of a copyrighted image. As Simonxag states too much of the substance of the original has been duplicated - Peripitus (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Walker_Family_Crest.jpg

Possibly unfree image. No information on the author/creator. No information on 'who' released it into the public domain. Obviously this digital clipart style picture doesn't date from 1200. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true the Clip Art Version does not date from 1200, but the original picture does, as it was used by the Noble Walker's as their shield crests and Horses. And as it belongs to my family we have agreed to digitalize it (a paid clipart artist that used an old shield as origin) to be able to use it on family matter's, documents and now on the internet for all Walker's to use. Therefore it is my belief that this is now Public Domain. Nicolas Walker - 19:40, 4 November 2009

The point here is whoever made this particular image is the copyright holder. It doesn't matter whether it is a depiction of something 800 years old. So you aren't supposed to upload clipart stuff off the net. Things where you aren't sure who exactly created the particular image. That's all. You first listed the author as "Walker Ancestry"[1]; then "Unknown"[2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vladimir_Presnyakov_Jr.jpg

© 2008 Интернет-холдинг «ОБОЗ.ua» разрешает любое использования материалов сайта при обязательной гиперссылке на сайт.

© 2008 Интернет-холдинг «ОБОЗ.ua». Все права защищены.
При любом использовании материалов сайта гиперссылка на сайт обязательна.
© 2008 Internet Holding «ОБОЗ.ua». All rights reserved. 
Any use of materials to make hyperlinks on the site is required.

--RaySys (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

changing speedy to normal delete per uploader's request.
Image is taken from website http://show.oboz.ua/article/15389.htm that states "© 2008 Интернет-холдинг «ОБОЗ.ua». Все права защищены." (© 2008 Internet Holding «ОБОЗ.ua». All rights reserved. ). Uploader didn't agree with the speedy deletion as he insists that "hyperlinks to the original source site allow use of image" File talk:Vladimir Presnyakov Jr.jpg. --Justass (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete there is a difference between "hyperlinks to the original source site allow use of image" (press license) and "free license". Uploading user should be blocked because he added a creative commons license tag, while the original site does not mention this license and has thus used the strategy to "just choose the license that fits best". --rtc (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Satyricon_download2.jpg

Most of the image consists of the stage-design (definitely not ineligible) and the screenshot of the large monitor for which the copyright owner is the camera men. -- Cecil (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete I'd forget the stage design, the picture isn't of that, but the screenshot is at least as important as the people in the current composition. The picture would be OK if you cropped it down to remove the screenshot and focus on the performers. --Simonxag (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually see the stage design as a unavoidable accessory, but in this case the real musicians are such a small part of the image that the design got pretty dominating (red). When first opening the image I had to look twice to see if there are people on the stage. Cropping down would be ok but the fotographer was too far away to leave something recognizable while we have good pics of Satyr and his buddys (and I would have some more in my upload queue if I ever manage to get to it (helpers welcome)). -- Cecil (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep La imagen fue subida de Flickr y fue ratificada, así que por esa razón creo que no debe ser borrada pues no incumple nada. La imagen forma parte en el artículo en español de la banda y queda perfectamente, así que pido que no sea borrada pues es muy difícil encontrar este tipo de fotos para subir a Commons. Además lo importante no es la banda en sí, sino el concierto en general.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because something on Flickr is marked under a free licence it does not need to be under a free licence in reality. People there just upload their pics and most don't think or know about licences at all. You can find there thausands of unfree images under free licences. Beeing wrongly marked free on Flickr is no excuse to transfer them to Commons. Here we have a different project scope and images have to be free. But yes, I have already noticed that this does not really matter to you. Lots of your uploads are copyright violations and/or have wrong licences. -- Cecil (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lo que sucede en la foto de Satyricon sucede también en esta foto ¿por qué no la borras también?

Si subo fotos que supuestamente tienen derechos de autor es porque no sé inglés y las subí para enriquecer un poco más Wikipedia--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are always free to make a deletion request if you see an image where you have doubts. But keeping one image because there is another is no argument at all. In this case the other pic now also has a deletion request. -- Cecil (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Entonces, ¿qué hay que hacer? ¿Borrar la foto o cortarla? Yo no sé cortar una imagen de Commons.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can try to crop the image somewhere between the heads of the musicians and the Kerrang-sign, but seeing its quality it will not leave much good to look at. There is a re-uploading function (on the image page in the lower third of the page) you could use for the re-upload of the cropped version. I can't delete the file myself, since I am the deletion nominator. Other possiblity: If you want I could upload ~70 images of a Satyricon show on Flickr, which I haven't yet filtered through to decide which ones are good enough for Commons (same for about 30 other metal-bands like Immortal, Neurosis, Sabaton, Suicidal Tendencies, Candlemass, ....). You can then decide which one you would like to have transferred to Commons, but you would have let me do the transfer because since I don't have a pro-account at Flickr I can't upload the full resolution file there. The collection contains a few images where you can see all the members except the drummer. -- Cecil (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think the image should be deleted, because cropped not serve too. I need a photo of Satyricon of the year 2006, but there are other image. If you can upload more photos, I will be thankful. I will try to upload more photos of the Immortal´s show in Metalway.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In 2006 I lived somewhere in the middle of nowhere, so no concerts. I just have Satyricon pics form 2007 (those uploads in the Satyricon-category with Metalcamp in their name) and from 2008 (check here if you like a few and notify me there or on my talk page). -- Cecil (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Euchloe-tagisEM.JPG

 Keep Nominated by uploader, but many months after original upload. Commons licenses are irrevocable. If the uploader/nominator were to give a reason we would consider it. --Simonxag (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the upload history, you can probably figure out the reason. Someone doesn't like it that people can edit their work, in this case, to remove a huge watermark. Maybe he had wrong idea about what this site was for.. That's unfortunate because this is the only photo we have of this particular species. Rocket000 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the reason he gave was "will upload a better one". If that's true, it should be uploaded over the current one. Rocket000 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the uploader wants their original version left in place untouched, then the version without the watermark could be uploaded under a new name with a link back to the original. It may not be the creation of the derived work that's annoying (it's clearly allowed by all our licenses), but the replacing of the original work. Just a thought. --Simonxag (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring more to the wiki aspect, than the free license aspect. I don't think having both versions (one of which would probably never be used) would benefit Commons. More useless redundant crap is the last thing Commons needs... sorry I'm little disillusion right now (not because of this). Commons is becoming a garbage dump. We keep anything and every thing without discretion (and I'm not alone). Outside looking in gives you a whole new perspective. Rocket000 (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ss_neue_reichskanzlei.jpg

An old photo of SS-soldiers in Berlin from 1939. The source website doesn't give any information about the author, but he can't be dead for more than 70 years yet. It's tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, however this exception of German copyright law only applies to a very narrow range of official works (law texts, judgments, etc..), see Commons:Licensing#Official_works_2. Photos are usually not considered to be "amtliche Werke", exceptions are pretty rare. The uploader, User:Brutalowesten, disagrees with this, so I'm nominating this file for deletion instead of tagging it with a no-permission tag again. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stadion_Miejski_w_Krakowwie_stary5.jpg

Lacking author, date and publishing information, as such the licence cannot be verified. feydey ^(talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also File:Stadion Miejski w Krakowwie stary4.jpg. feydey ^(talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)