Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] November 12

[Process deletion requests with ComDel (admin only)]

[edit] File:Cs_acdc.jpg

It appears to be a screen capture of the video Live at Donington Rockfang (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gehard_Colm_1897-1968.jpg

Image was token from obituary in "New School Bulletin" 1969. 83.77.96.106 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Réginald_Garrigou-Lagrange.jpg

Picture of a man in his older days who died in 1964, date and author unknown. 83.77.96.106 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bauarbeiterfruehstueck-in-aken.jpg

I don't think COM:FOP#Germany applies here. It looks like a special offer which can come and go, so I doubt it's permanently installed. –Tryphon^☂ 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Häää? Was soll denn da geschützt sein? Uns selbst wenn, dann würde die Panoramafreiheit greifen. Was soll der Unfug? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly the drawing of the Bauarbeiter can be protected. And Panoramafreiheit only applies to works permanently installed in a public space, which I doubt is the case here. –Tryphon^☂ 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • FOP is most likely irrelevant to this discussion. --Dschwen (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Warum ist Panoramafreiheit irrelevant? Das Ding ist auf Lebenszeit dauerhaft im öffentlichen Raum angebracht. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm, stimmt eigentlich, wenn man die Lebenszeit des Plakats mit der des Angebots gleichsetzt. Das ist eigentlich sinnvoll, denn das Plakat wird nach dem abhaengen sicherlich vernichtet und nicht irgendwo anders aufgehaengt. --Dschwen (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Without the blow-up it is certainly de minimis. The text is not protected, the builder cartoon is questionable at best (walking eye anyone?) especially in the barely identifiable silhouette form. --Dschwen (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Without the blow-up, I completely agree. But I don't see how that leads to a keep, there's no version without blow-up. –Tryphon^☂ 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Uhm, how about reading beyond my first sentence? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I did, but I assumed you were still referring to the small part incorporated in the rest of the image, not the blown-up one. If you're saying that in the blown-up version the builder is ineligible for copyright, then I disagree; it's not barely identifiable, and it's certainly more original than File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. The only argument to keep it as is would be to invoke FOP, but as I said, I don't think it's permanently located there. The other acceptable solution is to replace this file with the original picture (without the blow-up). –Tryphon^☂ 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Funny enough that builder is en:Bob the Builder. Nah well, let's wait for some more opinions. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete, Bob is certainly copyrighted. Derivative work. –blurpeace ^(talk) 08:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Das Bild entstand in Deutschland, auf öffentlichem Raum. Das Schild ist bleibend angebracht. Somit greift Panoramafreiheit. Ob der Anbringer des Schildes etwas falsch gemacht hat, steht hier nicht zur Debatte. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The artwork is not likely to be permanently installed. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Natürlich ist es permanent installiert. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As said before, it looks like an offer available for a little time. FOP probably does not work here. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_arm_flesh_out.JPG

This image is terribly wrong in the case of the arms muscles, which is very inaccurate. 81.231.20.173 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The arm muscles are inaccurate. 81.231.20.173 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep. The file is in use. Files that are in use in another Wikimedia project are not eligible for deletion on the grounds that they are "wrong" in some way. Please read Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having had a second look, it appears the only place it is used is on is to question the correctness, and the author does not seem to question this challenge, so it might be reasonable to delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_arm_flesh_out.JPG

This image is terribly wrong in the case of the arms muscles, which is very inaccurate. 81.231.20.173 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The arm muscles are inaccurate. 81.231.20.173 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep. The file is in use. Files that are in use in another Wikimedia project are not eligible for deletion on the grounds that they are "wrong" in some way. Please read Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having had a second look, it appears the only place it is used is on is to question the correctness, and the author does not seem to question this challenge, so it might be reasonable to delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_skull_057.JPG

Not god enough for Wikimedia. 81.231.20.173 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tyrannosaurus_rex-human_0505.JPG

We have to many size comparison between human an Tyrannosaurus rex. 81.231.20.173 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MOR555_skeletal_material.JPG

The proportions of the skeleton is wrong. 81.231.20.173 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The reason for the creation and use of the image is to show what portions of the skeleton are know and not known. If there are issues with proportions then they can be fixed.--Kevmin (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Baby_T-rex_0496.JPG

It is inaccurate. It shall not have knee caps, and it's wrong in other ways. 81.231.20.173 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_73763.JPG

Tail is to long, it should not have kneecaps. 81.231.20.173 15:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Magritte.MuseumP1040048.1.jpg

No COM:FOP#Belgium. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BHI3033_skeletal_material.JPG

The proportions of the skeletons are wrong. 81.231.20.173 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The reason for the creation and use of the image is to show what portions of the skeleton are know and not known. If there are issues with proportions then they can be fixed.

[edit] File:Céline_Bonnier.jpg

Image from flickr account with actors from the tv series Nikita, randomly colected over net. All other uploaded images are clear copyvio File:Peta Wilson.jpg File:Faith Susan Alberta Watson.jpeg File:Eugene Robert Glazer.jpg Justass (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Salve, sono Kat, la persona che ha caricato l'immagine di Céline Bonnier su Commons, spero di scrivere nel posto giusto... Vorrei dire che sebbene la foto provenga dall'utente Katth07 di Flick che ha nel suo fotoalbum altre foto che hanno violato copyright, secondo le direttive di Commons, questa foto di fatto non viola nessun copyright ed era già stata accettata dall'amministratore Pmlinediter e quindi non vedo un oggettivo motivo per la sua cancellazione. Spero che questa mia replica venga ascoltata e mi scuso per le atre foto che ho caricato e che violavano copyright di cui non ero a conoscenza e quindi che avevo caricato in buonissima fede. Grazie --Docekat (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peta Wilson.jpg, blatant flickr washing and copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Allosaurus_head_859.JPG

Classed as "anatomically incorrect". 81.231.20.173 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

== Краткое описание ==
{{Изображение
| Описание       = Т-64А ранних выпусков после капитального ремонта
| Автор          = Чобиток В.В. [http://armor.kiev.ua/]
| Время создания = 2000 год
| Источник       = собственная работа
}}
== Лицензия ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}

[edit] File:T64_21.jpg

The original uploader edit-warred with the removal of his watermark until the file was protected. In the previous DR he admitted he was not permitting the watermark to be removed. The license given is null, the author did not appreciate what it means, there is no "meeting of the minds" as the law puts it. -Nard the Bard 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Предыдущий оратор неправ. Я согласен с условиями лицензии, но лицензия не заменяет закон. Закон запрещает вырезать из работ подпись автора (копирайт). Например, почему-то никто не подорвался ретушировать копирайты на эти запросы: [5], [6], [7]. Почему? Случаи абсолютно аналогичные.

Удаление копирайта произошло с нарушениями правил проекта ([8]) - к автору с просьбой дать фотографию лучшего качества никто не обращался, а самостоятельное удаление предусмотрено для водяных знаков, на данной фотографии подпись копирайта с водяными знаками и рядом не стояла.

Тем не менее, я проявил добрую волю и предложил вариант решения проблемы [9]:

Шаг 1. Возвращение к первоначально загруженному варианту. Таким образом участники проекта идут навстречу, демонстрируют желание понять автора и соблюдать закон.

Шаг 2. Я сканирую пленку и предоставляю фотографию лучшего качества без надписей.

Никого компромиссный вариант не заинтересовал, народ предпочитает ипать автору мозги. В чём причина? --Чобиток Василий (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Editor-author does not agree that both cc-by-sa and local laws allow to remove watermark. Author insist that removing watermark from image is equal to removing copyright and prohibited under local laws (ru and ua) whatever license says. vlsergey (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I think this is difficult. There will be loads of cases where the author doesn't fully think through the implications of a free license and finds a use of their image they don't like. The whole point of a free license is that they can't turn round and object. On the other hand this author, right from the beginning, does really seem to have got the wrong idea about the nature of the licenses. They do however seem to have taken quite some time to raise any objection and the Commons is very clear and open about the nature of its licenses. --Simonxag (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SMLogo.jpg

Apparent copyright violation. Uploader is unlikely to be the actual author and/or copyright holder. No assertion is given that the city or other copyright holder has released the logo under a free license or into the public domain. However, this assumption of copyright violation could be rebutted with an appropriate OTRS ticket. --Werewombat (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F078972-0032,_Frankfurt-Main,_Hauptbahnhof.jpg

Per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany must be "permanently located on public ways" that the FOP rule applies. Even the Bundesarchiv claims to have the rights for both pictures I really doubt this, because a) it's not likely that they made both poster b) the face of Michael Jackson is the same as on en:File:Michael jackson bad cd cover 1987 cdda.jpg and I really doubt that the Bundesarchiv holds the right for the image which is/was used for the albumcover of bad. Commons:De minimis does also not apply as well because the content (the poster, advertising or whatever) is neither small enough nor is it somewhere in the backround so that you could claim that it was taken unintended or coincidentally. May the right image was taken by the Bundesarchiv but I guess that a photo of an advertising would be out of focus even it's may possible due to copyright, FOP etc.
--D-Kuru (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gal Stollsteiner.jpg

EXIF points to a professional camera and credits the ECPAD, a French military organisation that does not typically puts its works into the Public Domain. --Rama (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images of naked children

The law in about child pornography differs in every country. However, I don't think that some of the images Commons holds currently in it's stock are a)allowed in every country b)justifiable from the moral point of view. I don't suggest to delete every image which shows a naked person under the age of 18 (that would be a bit overeager). I suggest that every image gets deleted which actually shows the childs genitals or an inappropriate setup (examples can be found below).
Even Commons is not cencored, such images would may be in scope for educational purpose (such images can be eg. used for an article about children or at least about child abuse or child pornography) and may neither against the law of the United States (the First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech [...]" which can actually be worn out so that everything (no matter what) is protected by "the freedom of speech") nor the law of Florida (Florida Department of Law Enforcement: "Many websites appear to contain child pornography, but in reality contain "Child Erotica" (i.e., children photographed nude or partially nude posed in a manner that does not meet the criteria for sexual conduct). Child erotica is not illegal." ^source) I don't think that a)there is any need for such images b)these images can be kept becuase some countries/Supreme Courts may consider the same image as lawful or not.
I don't want to look/act like paranoid redneck or overcautious user, I just did a second thought for a quite long time and I don't want that Commons becomes some kind of softcore-child pornography host or something the like. Furthermore I suggest that all deleted images get removed by a system administrator so that they can only be brought back by a system administrator.
Per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04) all images of Wikipe-tan as Lolicon figure got deleted. Some time ago images with the same made-up like Durieu 7.jpg were speedy deleted.

Examples:

(please note that I just picked some examples and that the sepepration OK and delete is my opinion and may or may not be shared)

Just fo the notes: If there is no response on that deletion request the closing can't include that opinion. If there is no responce I will do everything the deletion on my own. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep and  Delete per D-Kuru. No use of such images --81.217.83.246 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- You put File:Malformed Mexican boy.jpg on your keep list, and File:Stratz - Körper des Kindes 03.jpg on your delete list -- yet both are clinical pictures of medical conditions. Could you offer further explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Stratz - Körper des Kindes 03.jpg could be used for educational purpose. However Malformed Mexican boy.jpg does not show any genitals. If the left side of Stratz - Körper des Kindes 03.jpg is cropped off the image could be kept. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are you sure that this amount of protective effort is warranted? The left side of this photo is clinical, not prurient. Clinical, non-prurient images of human beings are educational. In this image, we have a child who is not posing in a sexualized fashion, without any sexualized props. I suggest that the educational value in this photo should over-ride the concern that someone would be sexually stimulated by this basically non-erotic image.
• What underlying message do we want to convey to children? Do we want to convey that their bodies are "dirty", and they should feel shame over them? I suggest that this is the message conveyed by a total lockdown of even non-eroticized images of human bodies.
• I live in Canada, and we receive most US TV channels. Down there they have a TV show entitled "Toddlers and Tiaras" -- about very young children entered into beauty pageants by their parents. From the preview clips shown as commercials, these children are dressed up in pint-sized versions of provocative women's clothing. They are coached to mimic the eroticized poses of adult models. Some of them do their best to mimic the eroticized singing and dancing of adult women performers. Personally, I think that kind of thing represents a far greater danger to children, by stimulating those capable of desiring children instead of people their own age -- where-as clinical, non-eroticized images, like this one, don't. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not only about the protective side. As far as I know images like Stratz - Körper des Kindes 03.jpg are considered as (soft) child pornography in some coutries in Europe. And even they are may lawful on Commons by the US law and the law of Florida they must not be shown in other countries. So Commons could be blocked in these countries and this is (I guess) not what the target of the WMF is.

Even I don't think that children would neiter read this deletion request nor the reason for deletion I don't think that children feel dirty because some image of a naked child gets deleted. Just to note that: I do not talk about deleting all images of (naked) human bodies from Commons. Another not less important issue is that children are usually not asked before an image of their naked body gets published and I think thats a really unethical and/or immoral behaviour that should not be supported (Well yes, you could spend your whole lifetime talking about if deleting a file is the right way but in my opinion it's not worth it).

That a TV show (I would rather call it just crap) like "Toddlers and Tiaras" is produced is not what I consider as really friendly towards the children in this show (from more than one point of view). However, I don't think that the scale of what is acceptable and what is not should be 'created' by using just some crap like this show some TV producer need to fill their useless programm. May Stratz - Körper des Kindes 03.jpg is OK from a medical point of view but what about Durieu 7.jpg, Stratz - Körper des Kindes 15.jpg or Stratz - Körper des Kindes 23.jpg? I wouldn't keep them because they show something necessary like some medical stuff.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to concerns that the commons may be blocked in European countries, where, you say, the laws and cultural standards are different... This is a world-wide project. What possible justification could we have for tailoring our content to conform to your opinion of European standards, while ignoring the standards in other countries?
• With regard to your comment about whether children will get the idea their bodies are "dirty" from reading your comments in this discussion. Please don't misrepresent my comments. I suggested children get the idea their bodies are "dirty" when initiatives like your succeed in suppressing images of unclothed bodies. When images of unclothed bodies are suppressed -- mystified -- that is when they can be invested with erotic power. Children are curious about the "forbidden fruit". The more forbidden it is, the greater the power of their curiousity. I've read that one hundred years ago, or so, when women wore a lot more clothes, even a naked ankle was considered daring -- sexually titillating. Naked ankles have lost all that erotic power because they are no longer suppressed. Anti-smoking initiatives have made great strides in my lifetime. It is possible that if anti-smoking advocates continue to make the same kind of progress, for another generation or so, images of people smoking may be suppressed, and invested with the same kind of erotic power as naked ankles were a hundred years ago.
• With regard to your concern that images of children are routinely published without the children giving their legal consent... I typed the title of the book you took most of your examples from, "Der Körper des Kindes und seine Pflege", into google translate, and it says it means: "The body of the child and his foster". Children have parents, and legal guardians. Are you suggesting that when a professional, an MD, or other scientist, asks a parent to volunteer their child as a photographic subject, for a longitudal study on human growth, for example, that those photos should be suppressed because the child didn't give their informed consent themselves?
• I looked up Carl Heinrich Stratz, the publisher of many of the photos you disaprove of. The lead paragraph of the page in the German wikipedia reads: "Carl Heinrich Stratz (June 14 1858 in Odessa, April 21 1924 in The Hague) was a gynecologist who has published several scientific and popular books on medical and anthropological themes. His best known works are concerned with criteria for evaluation and promotion of female beauty. Stratz expressed racist theories. In child and adolescent, he made valuable contributions to the morphology of the healthy body."

I don't say that we should tighten Commons' file stock because some country disallows several images. I say that Commons will may be blocked in the future (as Wikipedia is in China for example; China is just an example. I know that not every country is as restrictive as China) and the worldwide free non-profit-'tag' won't help I guess. However, I'm sure that outside Europe are some countries which share the same thoughts so we are not talking about Europe only. Such images are may also a problem in the USA: „Show Me!“ contains also such images which are educative at the same rate and these images were also subject to expanded child pornography laws.

I guess you misunderstood my comment: I wrote "I don't think that children feel dirty because some image of a naked child gets deleted". If an image gets deleted it includes that there was at least some kind of deletion request which succeeded. I suspect that children give a crap on what we do on Commons. However, if a child gets influenced by a success of a deletion request I suspect that the child would get influenced by even more regnant things like any media (newspaper, TV, internet,...) and their social environment. The theory that a child thinks that their bodies are dirty because such a deletion request succeeds or because some more images get removed from the web(or some other media) is a bit over the top.

"Are you suggesting that [...] those photos should be suppressed because the child didn't give their informed consent themselves?" Yes and No. I think that children should be asked when they are old enough to understand what their decision is about. I don't suggest that no image should be published but rather to wait before such images get published. It may take a bit longer than to just ask the parents but I would say that it's worth it (some other of course will not share my point of view).

So what? Again: I only care about the content of the image. I neither care about who the author was nor what s/he did for a living.

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- What about any surviving images taken by w:Charles Dodgson aka "Lewis Carroll", author of Alice in Wonderland and Alice through the looking glass? When I was a teenager reviews of books about Dodgson merely discretely hinted at his having an interest in photographing children. Other sources have strongly implied that if he was not a pedophile, his activities triggered that kind of concern in some of the parents of the children he wanted to model for him. The surreal 1985 feature film "Dreamchild" strongly suggests Alice Liddell remained disturbed by Dodgson's attention for the rest of her life. Do readers need to see Dodgson's images to reach their own conclusions about his interest in photography? Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get what you want to ask...

I don't care who the author of an image is the image content is much more important than who may has taken it. "Do readers need to see Dodgson's images [...]": May they need/want to see these images to get their own conclusion may they don't. The crucial question is if Commons is the right place to show that kind of images. I'm sure that you can find these images in the internet or at least in a book which deals with the author. Even some people may want to see these images so that they know what they're taking about but I really doubt that they need to uploaded to Commons.

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dodgson, aka "Lewis Carroll", is a very well known author, of what are often considered works for children, or works accessible to children (even though they contain many hidden references to logic and higher mathematics). Our readers may have read the same rumors I have, that, not only was he an odd, eccentric bachelor, but that his interest in children was creepy, or actually made him an example of a pedophile. The w:Lewis Carroll article seems to be trying to put the surviving dozen or so photos of children that, out of context, might trigger a concern he was a pedophile in the context of a couple of hundred other surviving photos that are mundane nature studies or conventional portraits.
• If we chose to withhold that dozen our readers could imagine that they more strongly suggested something creepy than they would think if they could see them for themselves. Alternatively, those dozen of images might confirm for them that there was reason to suspect him, and that there might have been dozens of creepier photos that did not survive to the present day.
• I have thought about this since I left my first comment a couple of days ago. I now think we should show all the Dodgson photos.
• Your comment has left me with the impression that you didn't budget a couple of minutes to look at Category:Photographs of children by Lewis Carroll. Well, since you were the one who first raised this issue, could you please do so? Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In my comment above I talked about "that kind of images" which reffers to images of naked children (as defined at the beginning of this del request) by any author. I do not care who the author is, how many images s/he may has taken or what his/her intention was. I just care about the image content. Images like Dykes, Gertrude (Lewis Carroll, 09.1862).jpg or Rankin Flora (Lewis Carroll, 28.07.1863).jpg are not part of this discussion. Hatch, Evelyn (Lewis Carroll, 29.07.1879).jpg could be discussed.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep all. None of the images in the "Delete" column could reasonably be considered even erotic, let alone pornographic, and all are potentially useful to a Wikimedia project. —Angr 12:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

May you can give me a short example where you would use the images from the Delete section. --D-Kuru (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2003-0820-501, Berlin, Kinderbetreuung im Luftschutzbunker.jpg could be used in an article on life in Nazi Germany or in an article on air raid shelters; the others could be used in articles about their photographers; any of them could be used in an article about differing cultural attitudes toward nudity in general or child nudity in particular. I'm sure there are lots of other potential uses that haven't even occurred to me yet. —Angr 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DallasMunicipalCenterPlan1946.jpg

Very probably a copyrighted architectural plan. Flickr washing? AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ivanov georgi 1.jpg

Image appears to be made by the Russian Space agency. As such, it could not be released by the uploader in public domain. --myself488 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:French_Farman_F.222_in_Africa.jpg

It is highly doubtful, that flick uploader is a real author of this file or can decide about its legal status. Masur (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ezhov.PNG

There is no author of the image and there is no indication of when it was taken. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A little common sense, as well as the documentation on the image page itself, shows that it was taken in the Soviet Union prior to 1938. In other words, the work in public domain. If there is some arbitrary flaw in tagging the image, fix that, don't delete the useful photo. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)