Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/09
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Contents |
[edit] November 9
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] File:Chinese horoscope.jpg
The picture is ambiguous; no horoscope-related thing. --百家姓之四 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] File:Chinese_horoscope.jpg
The picture is a comics illustration which contains no horoscope-related thing. This picture is not in use anymore. 百家姓之四 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep Only because *you* edited it out of several wikis where it was in use. -Nard the Bard 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)- Keep Its a FlickrLickr image and was free at upload. Nard's comments are revealing about the nominator's crude and bad faith activities. I don't trust this nominator sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I take no position on whether the image is appropriate to use in an article, but it seems free license and at least of potential use in project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see... So, what about renaming it? Such as "File:Comics with Hanzi of Chinese Zodiac" or "File:Comics with Chinese characters of Chinese Zodiac"? 百家姓之四 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The first name is a reasonable solution. But only the closing Admin can decide here, not me. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] File:Chinese_horoscope.jpg
I apologize for nominating this file three times, but I didn't mean to bore people. I now have less time on Wikipedia and I found the things changed after the debate was closed: I sent a email to the picure uploder on Flickr, and I got this answer:
| “ | Hi Lee Bob Robert,
thanks for the questions, i wonder why my personal artwork from my personal album is posted, share and discuss on the wikimedia website? it is a personal artwork which i am paid and draw for the vogue magazine in 2006, and this artwork is under license of vogue magazine, and you should remove my artwork from your website! the artwork is about 12 chinese horoscope, which is also called as the 12 zodiac in china, chinese zodiac is different with the western horoscope, chinese horoscope used 12 animals as the zodiacs, (link: http://chinesecalligraphystore.com/chinese-zodiac-signs/index.html) , so may be thats makes the confusion discussions if it is related into horoscope. In my artwork, i use one girl represent for one zodiac, and behind the girl i draw the zodiac in form of chinese word: 鼠 (rat)，牛(cow)，虎(tiger)，兔(rabit)，龍(dragon)，蛇(Snake)，馬(Horse)，羊(sheep)，猴(monkey)，雞(chicken)，狗(dog)，豬(pig).. i hope this can help to solve the problems.. anyway u can feel free to contact me if there is an confusions~ Graham..
|
” |
So, it seems that the file need to be deleted. Thank you for taking your time reading this issue. 百家姓之四 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't trust this message. Why did you send a message to the author on Flikr? Even if that's his real response, he still posted it to Flikr under a free license, meaning that it's free for us to use. If it's copyright Vogue, then he should take it off Flikr now. Frankly, your actions here disturb me; you've engaged in a repeated attack against this image, which is damaging to the Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite this debate, I think it at least needs renaming, the name is mentioned above, in the second closed debate. 百家姓之四 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep If we take the statement "this artwork is under license of vogue magazine", as true, it does not affect anything. The copyright belongs to the author and any other licenses they grant (including free ones) are valid. --Simonxag (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept Available on Flickr under a free license. Sv1xv (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Martin_model_130_China_Clipper_class_passenger-carrying_flying.jpg
Source of photo appear to credit photo as mfr (i.e manufacturer ) if so, it is not a NASA photo and may not be public domain Nigel Ish (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep source is a nasa publication, which has no restrictions attached re: copyrighted material, at least nothing that i could find with a fair amount of effort. presumably nasa has their stuff in order.
the picture is from 1934 in any case (location: somewhere in the usa?), & if there ever was any interest in the copyright, it was most likely not renewed (circa 1962).
under the circumstances, the onus is on proving a copyviolation here, not disproving it: unless it can be shown that nasa does not have the rights in order on their end, the reasonable assumption is that they do, & therefore keep.
(also; the image is in use on multiple wikipedias (& not easily replaced), another reason to require solid evidence of copyvio before deleting)
