Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 November 11 1.1 File:10_HRK_2004.jpg and kunas!!! 1.2 File:Apatosaurus4.jpg 1.3 File:Carcharodontosaurio.jpg 1.4 File:Spinosaurina.jpg 1.5 File:Iguanodon_hand_958.JPG 1.6 File:Adasaur.jpg 1.7 File:Almagate.svg 1.8 File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_44.jpg 1.9 File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_43.jpg 1.10 File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_45.jpg 1.11 File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_41.jpg 1.12 File:Hieracium_WayneRay.jpg 1.13 File:ADH.JPG 1.14 File:Chrystal_Callahan.jpg 1.15 File:William Cosgrave by John Lavery.jpg (and others) 1.16 File:Karl_May,_Halbblut,_1916,_Titelbild.jpg 1.17 References 1.18 File:Organ_of_corti_multilingual.svg 1.19 File:Organ_of_corti_multilingual.svg 1.20 Files by Arnaud de Gramont 1.21 File:Heroi.jpg 1.22 File:Dualmonitoring.jpg 1.23 Category:Maps of Middle-earth 1.24 File:YQM-98A.JPG 1.25 File:P1010986vAbbemuseum.JPG 1.26 File:Boeing_P-8A_Poseidon.JPG 1.27 Template:PD-US-patent-no notice

[edit] November 11

[edit] File:Apatosaurus4.jpg

Too crude to be used for anything. FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Carcharodontosaurio.jpg

Out of scope, crude and anatomically incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spinosaurina.jpg

Crude and incorrect, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Iguanodon_hand_958.JPG

Crude and anatomically incorrect, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Adasaur.jpg

Anatomically incorrect and crude, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you could just say you don't like it, sheesh and kookamunga. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about me, this is the result of a discussion on the Dinosaur Wikiproject where it was concluded that anatomically inaccurate images need to be deleted, so they do not mislead people. This is certainly according to Commons policies, which say: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose As it is, the image is only used on a talk page, to illustrate that it is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. While I appreciate the efforts to illustrate dinosaur articles, the illustrations must be educational. An illustration based on nothing (see [1]) isn't educational and doesn't help the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review was specifically set up to filter out incorrect, non-educational illustrations. Firsfron (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Almagate.svg

IMHO this is not an appropriate depiction of the almagate structure, even though PubChem shows it in a similar way. See also this discussion. Leyo 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete, cos it's misleading. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion one way or the other - as I have said this was just constructed from the SMILES. If the structure is not correct then delete - I would add that if that is the case then we should make a comment on the en:Talk:Almagate page, otherwise someone else may see the PubChem image and repeat the operation. I note that the SMILES string is now absent from the en:Almagate page. Ron 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea with the talk page. --Leyo 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_44.jpg

Almost a duplicate of File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 42.jpg. Poorer version. — Erin (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep In use on a user gallery. --Simonxag (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_43.jpg

Almost a duplicate of File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 42.jpg. Poorer version. — Erin (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep In use on a user gallery. --Simonxag (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_45.jpg

Almost a duplicate of File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 42.jpg. Poorer version. — Erin (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep In use on a user gallery. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fale_-_Capo_Mimosa_-_310709_-_41.jpg

Almost a duplicate of File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 42.jpg. Poorer version. — Erin (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep In use on a user gallery. --Simonxag (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hieracium_WayneRay.jpg

Very blurry 6.21MB file. — Erin (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral why does the size matter?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they take a long time for people with slow internet connections to view or download. It just seems pointlessly big when the image is so blurry you can barely see what it is. — Erin (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Shows aspects of plant not evident in other photos in category. Rather poor focus but of possible use within project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ADH.JPG

not used anymore, wrong file format, poor quality, superceded by e. g. this. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Unusable. --Leyo 12:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Just mark it as superceded, if it is, no resaon to delete --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment And there is especially no reason to keep sth like that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chrystal_Callahan.jpg

Obviously a professional photograph of this model no indication that the user is the copyright holder Polargeo (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Well, they have declared that they are, and there is no indication that they are not the copyright holder :-). Can't see the image on the web anywhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:William Cosgrave by John Lavery.jpg (and others)

Uploader has loaded several images with claim "public domain because its copyright has expired. Life of the author plus 70 years." However the artist John Lavery died in 1941. Therefore PD cannot be claimed with a "life of artists +70 years". Because 70 haven't elapsed yet! Guliolopez (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Note - uploader also loaded images from other Irish artists. [2] [3] [4] Again these artists also died less than 70 years ago. It may be that he/she thinks that "PD-Art" applies to art based on it's creation/publication date. Whatever the case these works are not valid for this project. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Files by Arnaud de Gramont

This user has uploaded several images which are out of scope, copyvios (due to the FOP rule) or derivative works. However, this deletion request is NOT for all of his images

out of scope examples

• Paris 01.jpg - can only hardly be used for educational purpose; derivative work of a demaged poster or something the like
• Paris 10.jpg - educational purpose?; derivative work?
• Paris 08.jpg - per one above

derivative work

• Paris 02.jpg - derivative work of an advertising or a poster or something the like
• Paris 06.jpg - derivative work of post cards
• Paris 18.jpg - derivative work of a 2D artwork which is (I guess) neither freely licenced nor in the public domain
• Paris 21.jpg - per one above
• Paris 30.jpg - per two above

FOP copyvio

• Paris 04.jpg - because of the name I guess that it was taken in Paris. Depending what this image shows it could be a FOP problem
• Londres 12.jpg - I assume that in image was taken in London. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom says: "Note that under UK law works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from graphic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place."

maybe useful

• Paris 03.jpg
• Paris 05.jpg
• Paris 11.jpg

Even some images are nice from an artistic point of view we can't keep images on Commons which can't be freely licenced. So Flickr would maybe the right place for those images.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Most are copyvios and the rest would only be useful if they had some meaningful description. --Simonxag (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Heroi.jpg

I believe it is out of scope, and of poor resolution anyway. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Personal image, but in use on a user subpage. --Simonxag (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hum ? Have you looked at User:Bayo/Newpages CVG Commons ? It is a maintenance page, automatically updated with « New files about video game » (based on categories)... Jean-Fred (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dualmonitoring.jpg

The user took a photograph of a copyrighted still frame; he is incapable of releasing that image into the public domain. 96.25.162.100 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete A copyrighted screenshot is an important element in the photo. --Simonxag (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:YQM-98A.JPG

Cant read the russian source but appears to be a magazine/book scan so possible not uploaders copyright to release MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P1010986vAbbemuseum.JPG

No PD. Artist Jan Sluijters died in 1957 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep There is COM:FOP in Holland here and it is part of a permanent museum collection that is accessible to the public. So, it should stay on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's released as GFDL, so we are free to crop the image to remove the frame. But in that case freedom of panorama does not apply anymore. Which means we are not allowed to crop it, which means it can't be GFDL or any other of our licences, as far as I can see. Anyway File:P1010982vAbbemuseum.JPG from the same contributor has been deleted before, for the same reason. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is, does 'panorama' apply here? The picture shows only a piece of the wall, but not the public space the painting is in. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Boeing_P-8A_Poseidon.JPG

Cant be the work of the US Navy as source indicates it is a Boeing image MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete seems Navy website only host this image, but it wasn't created by navy employ or soldier. There are some other images tagged by (Boeing/Released}:

File:US Navy 090425-0-0000X-004 A Boeing P-8A Poseidon test aircraft T-1 conducts a test flight April 25, 2009.jpg

File:US Navy 090425-0-0000X-002 A Boeing P-8A Poseidon test aircraft T-1 conducts a test flight April 25, 2009.jpg

File:US Navy 090605-O-0000X-001 A Boeing P-8A Poseidon test conducts a test flight June 5, 2009.jpg

File:P-8A Poseidon.JPG

File:US Navy 090425-0-0000X-003 A Boeing P-8A Poseidon test aircraft T-1 conducts a test flight April 25, 2009.jpg

File:Delta II 7420-10C rocket launching CALIPSO and CloudSat.jpg (Boeing/Thom Baur} --Justass (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep. For all of these photos, the assertion being made by NAVY or NASA is that the image has been released by Boeing or whomever to that agency for their own purposes; hence the phrase "Photo courtesy Boeing/Released". Another image where this has been debated in DR is File:Orbiting Carbon Observatory launch from Vandenberg.jpg. Ultimately, the federal agency is claiming ownership of these images, so it is incumbent upon them to properly state the licensing status of the image. In this case, we're free to use them as Navy or NASA images. Note that the license template used for each image should be changed to {{PD-copyright holder}}, since this template state that the agency holds the copyright, not that an employee took the picture. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment we dont know that Photo courtesy Boeing/Released means the same as Boeing have released it into the public domain for anybody to use both commercial/non-commercial you are just assuming that is the position. I cant see any claim by the Navy that is has any rights other than it is released to the Navy for use for its own purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the NASA photo, it is undoubtedly PD, as their licensing specifically states this. The above image I referenced had the same issue. For the Navy images, it is my strong belief and understanding that when a photo is marked as "Released", in this situation, it means the image is released to the Navy by the originating photographer and will fall under the Navy's copyright (or lack thereof). If you'll notice at this link, all of the Navy-crewmember-created images are also marked as "released". Additional comments by other editors would of course be appreciated here. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-US-patent-no notice

It is a myth that illustrations from patents become public domain if they lack copyright notices: "A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material contained therein"[5], "A copyright or mask work notice may appear in the drawing"[6] (my emphasis). Note it says may. It does not say "must". It does not say either that the illustration loses copyright if there is no such copyright notice. It merely says that explicit permission must be given to reproduce the illustration as part of a verbatim copy of the patent if such copyright notices are there. Again, it does not say that the illustration loses copyright if no such explicit permission is there. It does not say either that you may take the illustration out of context and use it as if it were in the public domain. So: If your illustration is copyrighted, you may opt to either add a copyright notice to it, but you must then add an explicit permission to reproduce the illustration as part of a verbatim copy of the patent, OR you may opt to have no copyright notice on it, then you are not required to add the explicit permission. In both cases, you do not lose copyright. But also if you, for example, add a copyright notice but no explicit permission statement, then merely the patent office must reject your patent; it still does not mean that you lose copyright if it lets it slip through accidentally. Stated plainly: There is simply no such thing as a loss of copyright because you published your illustration in a patent, regardless of the circumstances. To give some examples that are pretty clear: Of course, AT-ATs, B-wing starfighters, Link and Mario are not in the public domain because they were published in a patent and the authors forgot to add copyright notices. It would simply be ridiculous and would mean that the person submitting the patent would have done exactly the opposite of what he wanted to do; put the stuff into the public domain instead of give it patent restrictions in addition to copyright restrictions. Of course, law is not supposed to have that effect. So please stop dreaming; there is simply no way or "trick" to circumvent copyright law. The patent office says "Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions."[7] but it is obviously referring to threshold of originality here, and does not claim that there is anything special about patents. Rather, it even warns you: "CAUTION: There are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright. You should consult an attorney regarding these potential [...] copyright issues. The USPTO will not assist in determining if a potential [...] copyright issue exists for a particular patent." And this warning is clearly not a warning restricted to the case that the illustrations are supplied with 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s) copyright notices. See also Commons talk:Licensing/U.S. patents. --rtc (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)